Windows 8: how did so much suck happen?

So, the same device can be used as a portable device running touch apps like an iPad or a powerful desktop device running desktop apps like Windows 7.

Newsflash: It is possible to have the same device running both touch apps and desktop apps, with a single taskbar, if you decided to design the OS that way.

Microsoft's approach, with two separate ones, just reeks of ineptness.
 
I really don't understand that when people point out that there are legitimate design issues with 8 there will be others who suggest that the first group are apparently just too stupid to work around them. I think most of the people complaining about the design can work around them but they shouldn't have to; being able to work around the problems is not an indication of a good design.
 
I really don't understand that when people point out that there are legitimate design issues with 8 there will be others who suggest that the first group are apparently just too stupid to work around them. I think most of the people complaining about the design can work around them but they shouldn't have to; being able to work around the problems is not an indication of a good design.

the majority of the complaints aren't design issues, there about default setting issues. The touch interface design is great for touch devices. The desktop interface design is great for desktop devices.

The idiocy wasn't design, it was in defaulting to the the touch interface even on non-touch devices.
 
the majority of the complaints aren't design issues, there about default setting issues. The touch interface design is great for touch devices. The desktop interface design is great for desktop devices.

The idiocy wasn't design, it was in defaulting to the the touch interface even on non-touch devices.

I'm not sure if you realize this but that's part of the design. Trying to hand wave complaints away doesn't change the fact MS made a piss poor UI.

I remember once installing 7 in a weird situation where the video was running at 640 and one of the initial setup screens (time zone or something) was actually taller than that so I couldn't see the button to move on at the bottom. It wasn't a normal situation but it was still a design issue.

ETA: A third party example: The oldest software my employer makes has, on at least one of it's windows (it's a complicated piece of kit) a row of decent sized buttons on the top. Each button has an icon, but since the buttons are application specific (in a niche industry) they aren't standard (eg open, save, print). They have a tool tip with their description and if you right click you can put the descriptions on the buttons as text but a fresh set up will give you strange, foreign icons with no immediate clue as to what they do. The default option is part of the design and a poor one at that. It can be worked around by turning the captions on, but it shouldn't have to be - the option should be to turn them off instead.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you realize this but that's part of the design. Trying to hand wave complaints away doesn't change the fact MS made a piss poor UI.

Again, the UI's are fine. The choice of UI to use is a different matter. What I'd agree with is the installation process was poorly designed.
 
Again, the UI's are fine. The choice of UI to use is a different matter. What I'd agree with is the installation process was poorly designed.

The UIs are not fine, they are poorly planned. There are good elements there for touchscreen interfaces (the desktop side is just a stripped down copy of 7 so it doesn't add anything new) but it's really a poorly worked mess. Most people I've heard from who've used it on touch devices seem to really like it, but on normal computers it's a mixed bag of opinions because the design is so erratic and inconsistent. I get that you like it, that's fine, I liked Windows ME, but the complaints are legitimate.
 
The UIs are not fine

You contradict yourself ...

they are poorly planned. There are good elements there for touchscreen interfaces (the desktop side is just a stripped down copy of 7 so it doesn't add anything new) but it's really a poorly worked mess.

So the desktop UI is fine ....

Most people I've heard from who've used it on touch devices seem to really like it

And the touch UI is fine ...

but on normal computers it's a mixed bag of opinions because the design is so erratic and inconsistent.

So the problem is the touch interface doesn't work well on non-touch devices?

Ever used an iPad or Android tablet as desktop replacement? They're bad at it. Apparently that means they're badly designed. :rolleyes:
 
Newsflash: It is possible to have the same device running both touch apps and desktop apps, with a single taskbar, if you decided to design the OS that way.

Microsoft's approach, with two separate ones, just reeks of ineptness.

I have no idea what half this means.

Does this mean that, with 8, I will need to know what type of thing I am wanting to run to know where to look for it? Why? Can't I just run a thing?
 
You contradict yourself ...

I didn't, no, you just either fail to comprehend or are intentionally misrepresenting my words.

So the desktop UI is fine ....

No. Try again.

And the touch UI is fine ...

On a touch device, possibly. I don't have a touch Win8 device and have no interest in it.

So the problem is the touch interface doesn't work well on non-touch devices?

The problem is that it's a hodgepodge of different designs trying to work together. They don't coalesce properly and feel divergent. It's a poor design.

There are some good elements in there, but that doesn't make the final product a good design - especially for a full desktop.

Ever used an iPad or Android tablet as desktop replacement? They're bad at it. Apparently that means they're badly designed. :rolleyes:

Why would I want to use a tablet as a desktop replacement? That doesn't even make sense. If a tablet meets my needs I wouldn't actually need a desktop and wouldn't need a replacement.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what half this means.

Does this mean that, with 8, I will need to know what type of thing I am wanting to run to know where to look for it? Why? Can't I just run a thing?

If you're using it as a desktop ala 7 you probably wouldn't have to worry much about it.
 
Too much? Or at all?

Kind of like Rat says. If you stick to desktop applications (basically things that can also run on 7) you may never really deal with the inconsistencies, but if you start using metro apps too it'll just add some confusion of where what is (I'm sure you'd get use to it reasonably quickly, though).

Depending on how much of a tech person you are, though, you may have to deal with metro for some settings, at least I did back when I was setting up my 8 htpc but it doesn't have 8.1.

ETA: As much as I may agree that 8 is a mess of a design it's still a perfectly serviceable OS that may offer some benefits depending on the needs of the user. As is demonstrated people can usually find their way to how they want to use it without too much trouble.
 
Last edited:
Why would I want to use a tablet as a desktop replacement? That doesn't even make sense. If a tablet meets my needs I wouldn't actually need a desktop and wouldn't need a replacement.

So if you don't need a bicycle, it makes no sense for companies to make bicycles?

A little egocentric methinks ..... ;)

Try a Surface Pro2. It's a fully fledged powerful desktop PC you can pick up and take with you and use as a tablet. It's clearly the type of device Windows 8 was designed for, and clearly where Microsoft thinks things are heading. I agree with them.
 
So if you don't need a bicycle, it makes no sense for companies to make bicycles?

A little egocentric methinks ..... ;)

Really? Is english not your first language?

I don't need a tablet so I have no need to buy one. I have need for a full fledged desktop (multiple, in fact) and no tablet could replace when they do for me. That's just for my home devices, at work I have a desktop with four monitors (and sometimes I wish I had 6) to do my regular work and I'm frequently remoting into other machines that for practical purposes have to be desktops, not tablets, not laptops, not even servers. I'm what some people call a "power user", you know, the people that Microsoft has basically ignored.

Try a Surface Pro2. It's a fully fledged powerful desktop PC you can pick up and take with you and use as a tablet. It's clearly the type of device Windows 8 was designed for, and clearly where Microsoft thinks things are heading. I agree with them.

No, it's a tablet, not a desktop. A desktop has specific purposes that only a desktop can meet. Some people's needs are so loose that multiple types of devices can work for them. If someone basically just does the internet and email then a tablet would be fine, throw in a physical keyboard option and you'll work for work processing too. That doesn't mean it can do everything a desktop can and I don't think even Microsoft if naive enough to think it can.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, 9%. Windows 7 was only at about 14% at the same time after launch. That's much higher than I expected given the PC sales slump.

I kind of like this. The reason that Windows 8 market share is low is because for some unknown reason people aren't buying desktop computers with Windows 8 installed on them.

For the average desktop PC user, is there anything in the Windows 8 UI that is an improvement? What I have believed for awhile is that Microsoft attempted to foist its new interface on the existing user base knowing that the vast majority of desktop PC users would gain nothing by the change and actually be worse off for it. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Uninstall the version of skype you're using, then go here to get the version designed for desktop: http://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-windows/



Open the Default Programs folder and click "set your default programs". Scroll down till you see Windows Media Player and click on it. Click "set this program as default". Do the same for Windows Photo Viewer.

I will have to try that.

And this is the real point.

I expect a new OS to work "out of the box" exactly like my old OS. I expect everything in the same place as it was before. I expect ALL the software I have on my current OS to transfer seamlessly to the new OS and work exactly the same way as it did before. I don't expect to have to search for common items or run the mouse up against the corner of a screen to find stuff that used to be plain sight.

I can see changing stuff that wasn't optimal before. But Microsoft changed the stuff that worked, was intuitive and replaced it all with things that were more complicated.

It's like upgrading to a new HD TV receiver (take your pick if it is for cable or a dish service) and finding out they got rid of the "guide" feature and replaced it with a voice command system that requires you to know exactly what channel to turn it to while not knowing what channel number it is (because that was changed too).

Then you have to go on the internet to order up some add on feature that emulates the old "guide" so you can just watch TV like you used to.

I do wonder how the release of Windows 95 (which of course introduced the start menu as well as lots of others standard bits of Windows) would have looked if 3.11 had the numbers of people using it at home that XP did, and the web widely available and used for them to vent on.

Windows 95 made sense. It was intuitive. Sure it was different but everyone I knew immediately understood the differences and agreed they made the entire thing easier to use. That was a huge success for that very reason. The only people I ever encountered that preferred Windows 3 were hard core old school who still ran most things out of DOS.

I expect some changes of course, but I expect it to be just like buying a new car. I have owned several successive models of Subaru, beginning with a Leone and currently with the Legacy Grand Wagon. The later models all have nice extras like ride-height, suspension stiffness, traction control, and electrically adjustable seats, that the earlier models didn't have. However, they all have one thing in common. The steering wheel is right in front of the driver, and the pedals on the floor are clutch on the left, brake in the middle and accelerator on the right.

For me this new OS is like buying the new car because your old one just won't run anymore, hearing how awesome the start up time and power of the new car is then realizing they now have the steering wheel on the door which can only be operated by your left hand while you look out the window, the ignition switch is a touchscreen that requires you to "unlock" it first. There seems to be no gear switch until someone points out that you now operate that with your left foot where the brakes used to be and the brakes are now on voice command.

Oh and there is no switch for the headlights or wiper blades. That is entirely automatic though the dealer can have "manual" switches installed for an extra fee.

You realize Travis' problem with Windows 8 was that he accidentally downloaded the wrong version of skype and that he hadn't changed his default music player, right...? Those problems can be fixed within a couple minutes and they aren't interface problems.

Which is itself somewhat stressful.

And how is it this happened? I opened my browser, went to the Skype page, it said "this is the version you need for Windows 8" and I installed it. Only to then realize it doesn't do anything that Skype used to do and require switching screens to do anything.

That is just dumb.

Hell I wouldn't have known there was a different version for Win7 if not for people telling me.

And why did he download the "wrong version"?

Exactly.

The same reason that full screen apps were set as default for media files. Because someone (or multiple someones) at Microsoft is very stupid. I made the exact same mistake Travis did with Skype. It was a little annoying, but it was an easy problem to fix.

Travis' troubles with his new computer are the result of very dumb mistakes by MS, but they aren't problems with the OS itself.

Whatever it was it pisses me off.

We don't have to guess. I remember the migration between these two OS's as I was a PC nerd back when it came out. I knew people who lost their **** about the changes.

Hell, I knew people who lost their **** about the relatively minor interface changes between Windows 98 and XP since 98 was what most people were using before upgrading. There were people, not just average computer users mind you, but writers for computer magazines who were claiming that XP was incredibly awful and people should stay with 98 or 2000.

Now people in that same industry, some of them the exact same people, are freaking out over the changes in win8 :jaw-dropp and telling people to stay with older OS's. Some of them are even pining for the good old days when XP was the standard because it was such an awesome OS. Did these people just forget what the wrote 10-12 years ago? Maybe they are right and this OS series will cost Microsoft market domination, but if they are right I won't believe for a second it's because they are good at their job It'll be because they say the same things every time an OS comes out

I remember people loving XP right out of the box. It actually fixed the issues of ME and was a remarkably stable system that hardly ever blue screened.

Let me put it this way, I recently bought a new car, a Mazda6. I love it.

When reading some Win8 reviews I feel like I'm reading a review of the Mazda6 and people are complaining about how hard it is to get in to the driver seat ... because they're trying to do it by climbing through the boot.

I'm like - What? Why? Why on earth don't you just open the door?

I think it is more like my example above where you get in the new car and find out that Mazda has changed everything to make it non-intuitive and harder to use and you can't figure out why. Why move the steering wheel? Why hide the ignition switch? Why do away with foot activated brakes?
 

Back
Top Bottom