Windows 8: how did so much suck happen?

Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
What space is being wasted?

And why can't you explain to your mother that the applications aren't really open all the time?
Click to expand...

I've worked in tech support, the unfortunately reality is that people who know nothing about computers, and know they know nothing about computers will call for advice and then when told how something works they will disagree and say it doesn't really work that way...they they will cuss you out for 10 minutes for disagreeing with them.
 
Screw Microsoft. Over the years I've helped my Dad install new computer every 5 years or so. Each time I hook it up, install his software and help him a bit on how to do a few things. The differences from one version to the next have been small enough that there is only a little effort involved for him as he makes the transition.

From his perspective, changes to the GUI aren't of much value even if they are an improvement. He has become a writer (he's working on his third novel) and he uses Microsoft office for that. And he uses email and the internet so he spends hardly anytime using the GUI for selecting the programs he is going to use. My Dad is now 96 years old. There was zero value to Windows 8 for somebody like my dad. I couldn't believe that Microsoft would so transparently thumb its nose at the older section of their user base. These are people that just want to use their email, use the internet a bit and look at pictures of their grand-kids. Microsoft effectively told them, screw you, we don't give a crap about you.

Not only didn't Microsoft give a crap about users like my father, they didn't give a crap about their long standing business partners who have been savaged by the double whammy of a changing paradigm in the desktop computer business and a partner that didn't care about anything except its zeal for a questionable business strategy designed to try to make up for their relentless failure to adapt as the computer business changed.

I might buy a new desktop computer with Windows on it some day, but I will never buy a Windows smart phone or tablet. Fortunately we now have a choice and it is clear that if Microsoft ever got control of another OS market like it has with the desktop market that it could follow the same path again, using its power to screw over consumers.
 
Last edited:
Rat said:
So presumably you must have hated every previous version. No version of Windows has been exactly like the previous. As far as I can tell, the same is true of Mac OS and the major flavours of Linux.
Click to expand...

They were not "wildly" changing. Program/setup stuff has always been in a sub menu from start for example. The adaptation from a version to the next was not that bad. Win 8 (or 8.1) is quite universaly riled OTOH. And after having used it for a small while I would say rightfully so.
 
SkeptimusPrime said:
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
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. I installed many PC to people and supported my department through 2 migration (to XP, then to Win 7). And whereas there was some ranting from *a few*, the majority could adapt quite quickly to the 4 or 5 applications they were using because the paradigm were the same. Click on the X to close, or hit alt-f4, click on the _ to minimize click on the square to maximize, go into start menu, go into setup, go into screen saver section , whatever, it was the same thought process required for all actions from one version to the next.

We are speaking here of a complete paradigm change. And that is about as terrible thing as you can do to a user. Heck I had *less* problem teaching user about unix/irix/linux , because it uses similar paradigm as win under some of the GUI (or vice versa whatever happened historically). But win 8 is a complete utter change. One that has no rime or reason for a desktop, where people multitask a lot switching stuff or (for the initial version of windows 8) have large screen where they put two document or four document side by side to work.

Bottom line, as a phone OS, why not. As a sucessor for win 7, it was a terrible error.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Click on the X to close, or hit alt-f4, click on the _ to minimize click on the square to maximize, go into start menu, go into setup, go into screen saver section , whatever, it was the same thought process required for all actions from one version to the next.
Click to expand...

And here I am, clicking X to close, or hitting alt-F4, clicking on the _ to minimize, clicking on the square to maximise, going into the start menu (start screen - one change!) Typing setup, going in to the screensave section.

We are speaking here of a complete paradigm change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like a complete paradigm change :cool:

But win 8 is a complete utter change.
Click to expand...

See above. Only significant change for a desktop user is the menu is full screen. That's not a "complete utter change"

One that has no rime or reason for a desktop, where people multitask a lot switching stuff or (for the initial version of windows 8) have large screen where they put two document or four document side by side to work.
Click to expand...

The initial version of Windows 8 was the same as I just described.

Bottom line, as a phone OS, why not. As a sucessor for win 7, it was a terrible error.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, you're talking about the touch interface. Why not indeed. A better question - why on earth would you be using the touch interface on the desktop when there's the perfectly good desktop Windows 8 interface?

Like rat and others, I seriously wonder if people like you have even used it, your comments are so far from the reality and seem to be based on hearsay.
 
Well, this is a suprisingly heated discussion.

Why are some so insistant that, if they don't like it, it's pants.

Why are others so insistant that, because they like it, the former group are wrong.


I know next to nothing about computers. the last thing I did that was technical was write a batch file so I could use paged memory. Or something.

When I have to switch, will I need to learn to do anything that I will only have to do once to get the damn thing started? I object to that.

I don't object so much to having to learn to do new stuff that I will have to repeat.
 
icerat said:
A better question - why on earth would you be using the touch interface on the desktop when there's the perfectly good desktop Windows 8 interface?
Click to expand...

Because that's the default interface, and all the default apps will kick you back to that interface whenever they run, even if you do manage to switch to the desktop. It's not obvious how to change it during the install, nor how to change it permanently after the install. You have to search the webs for the instructions, which most people are unable to understand anyway.
 
GodMark2 said:
Because that's the default interface, and all the default apps will kick you back to that interface whenever they run, even if you do manage to switch to the desktop. It's not obvious how to change it during the install, nor how to change it permanently after the install. You have to search the webs for the instructions, which most people are unable to understand anyway.
Click to expand...

That issue was removed with 8.1.

As I've said earlier I consider that decision to be a marketing disaster, not an OS disaster. Even worse were hardware manufacturers who elected to configure touchpads as pseudo touch screens
 
3point14 said:
Well, this is a suprisingly heated discussion.

Why are some so insistant that, if they don't like it, it's pants.

Why are others so insistant that, because they like it, the former group are wrong.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Well it may be a case of YMMV--but all i can say is ive run my desktop with Vista for years and havent had a single issue--it's fast and easy to work with. My laptop, which has considerably more RAM and processing power, runs with Windows 8 and it has been one headache after another...crashes, black screens, unresponsive apps, frozen cursors, the OS is so overloaded with tasks and programs that it eats up huge memory and slows you to a crawl. Programs lose their settings and default upon the numerous updates. Worst OS EVER!!
 
icerat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Congrats on that choice. Fine piece of technology, that.

I nearly went for it, but picked a competitor. But only just.
 
icerat said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. It is not. It's like they go to get in the driver door and it is gone. They have to press the badge on the bonnet and the door appears again. Then when they get in the drivers seat they cannot then close the drivers door. Then when they eventually find out how to do that and go for a drive they cannot find out how to switch off the engine.
 
icerat said:
As I've said earlier I consider that decision to be a marketing disaster, not an OS disaster.
Click to expand...
Right. Because defaulting to the Start Screen only existed in Microsoft Ads, not the OS itself. :rolleyes:

NOT!!!

icerat said:
Even worse were hardware manufacturers who elected to configure touchpads as pseudo touch screens
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was also an issue for some manufacturers before Win8. So, we can't blame MS for that one.

Brian-M said:
I'll have to take your word for that because I've never used it.
Click to expand...
I would also like to remind everyone that the OS has two completely separate taskbars, that behave completely differently, for different types of apps.: One for Desktop apps, one for Modern UI apps.

So, it can also be just a little more difficult to find running apps, not merely icons for starting up apps.

How ridiculous is that?!
 
Wowbagger said:
I would also like to remind everyone that the OS has two completely separate taskbars, that behave completely differently, for different types of apps.: One for Desktop apps, one for Modern UI apps.

So, it can also be just a little more difficult to find running apps, not merely icons for starting up apps.

How ridiculous is that?!
Click to expand...

I would also like to remind everyone the the OS has two completely separate taskbars, that behave completely differently, for different types of apps.: One for Desktop apps, one for touch apps.

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.

How great is that!?! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom