I believe Win 8 is going to be another Windows Vista

[R0bR]

What I find interesting is that the so called "experts", much like many users on this site it seems, didn't expect consumers to want touch. You'll find that many of the Windows 8 desktops and laptops on the market do not have touch screens. However, the demand from consumers is there, currently there is a shortage of touch screens available especially in the laptop market.

I agree with Mystere that Windows 8 works best with a keyboard, mouse AND touch combination, that's how I use my Surface RT tablet.

 

[Ray8]

I really don't think that anyone has said that touch is not wanted or warranted. But what has been said is that Microsoft should have retained the option for the traditional desktop interface as well, in complete isolation of the Modern interface. There is a valid need for both, without having to resort to third party applications.

It's quite irrelevant to the debate whether the Modern interface works with touch/keyboard/mouse; it does, but for many that is a moot point. It's how it works overall with programs that's important and, currently, it's more of a Heath Robinson (or Rube Goldberg for you on the other side of the pond) affair than anything else.

 

[Ray8]

After once again firing up Windows 8 on my desktop and doing some maintenance, updates and other things. I simply cannot come to grips with what Microsoft has done. I have removed Classic Shell, as it blocked most updates and so I've been using the Modern interface in the way that Microsoft 'intended', kind of, as my monitors are not touch capable.

Simply put, the Microsoft way is the most frustrating and tiresome way of using a desktop that I've ever encountered. Every time that I wanted to do something, I had to go back to the Modern interface to open an application, which then took me back to the desktop and so on. Using the car analogy once again, it was like having to turn the ignition off and then on again, every time that you wanted to change gears/stop/turn on the air conditioning etc.

I could load the desktop and taskbar with shortcuts for everything that I use and end up with just as useless and cluttered screen as is the Modern interface. But why? I was constantly looking at that empty spot on the bottom-left of the screen, yearning for the start button to re-appear. For all the underlying OS benefits that Windows 8 may offer over Windows 7, the user interface is a complete crock in its current form for desktop use, at least for me.

 

[davehc]

I haven't found the Classic shell interfering with my updates?
But, in Windows 7 and earlier, were you in the habit of having shortcuts on your taskbar and/or Desktop? If so, then there is little difference in an organised "metro " screen. On the other hand, if you liked a clean desktop (my preference) then it was necessary to click the start orb - Programs, and then select the desired program. In Windows 8, all that is needed is to click the Windows key and you have your ordered programs readily displayed.

I saw this in one of your earlier posts:
"when it's easier to do so from start menu in the desktop"

 

[Ray8]

Classic shell has interfered with every critical update. I didn't know what was going on until after I did some searching and once I removed it, I had no issues with updates.

I'm used to a fairly minimalist desktop, I have a couple of shortcuts on the desktop (these are for more or less temporary documents) and several shortcuts on the taskbar for frequent programs, Oultook, IE, Windows Explorer, Skype, everything else is accessed from the start menu. I can access all the programs from the start menu, because I have the majority 'pinned' to the pop-up menu, Lightroom, Photoshop, Acrobat etc. Only rarely do I have to go deeper into the menus itself.

I have tried to emulate that experience in the Modern interface, but that's not what it's meant for and so does not work. All it does is work like a flat desktop with shortcut icons tiled all over the screen. The tiling may have some order, but it's fundamentally no different to doing the same on the desktop. But what makes matters worse, is that you have to jump between two completely unrelated screens to access things. That's poor design.

 

[davehc]

Fair comment. I did put my "Metro in some order. As I said, I always have been accustomed to a totally clean desktop (dont ask why!). So I find mouse clicks on the Metro, in many ways, more convenient than the old Start Menu.

 

[Bo Jangles]

You know, before I bought this new laptop, (without a touch screen,) I was thinking along the same lines as the OP. Yet as I work with this new system, I'm liking it more & more. I think this will be the case with many users if they just give it a chance.

 

[mcnulty]

Your argument is just as ridiculous as saying Windows 7 is designed to be used only with a mouse, so using a keyboard sucks.

Of course that's ridiculous. What's not ridiculous is to say that Windows 7 is clearly not designed for touch (though that doesn't mean that you cannot use it as such). Now with Windows 8 Microsoft has just reverted that and designed for touch first this time. The same way that Windows 7 was wrong for touch devices, now WIndows 8 is wrong for non-touch devices.

Not only is your comment logically flawed, it doesn't even begin to make any sense. What makes touch so special that it somehow can't work effectively with a mouse? I keep hearing this BS over and over again, and nobody can explain exactly how using a keyboard or mouse with it is so terrible.

Well, the fact that you're unable to grasp it doesn't mean it's BS. Ask Apple, they seem to know the difference quite well and that's why they keep their mobile and desktop versions of their OS separated. Of course, they're not the ones that are five years late to the game so they don't need to mess up their desktop OS just so they can have a hope of getting traction on their phones and tablets... which is the only reason Windows 8 was designed the way it was.

Windows 8 is *EXACTLY* as usable with a keyboard and mouse and Windows 7 was. Exactly. I can't think of a single keyboard shortcut that doesn't work, nor can I think of a single way you would use a keyboard and mouse that Windows 8 somehow makes non-functional. Just because they added touch support as well (gestures, etc..) doesn't change the keyboard and mouse functionality, which is identical to what it was.

Sure, the parts that remain exactly as in Windows 7 are identical to what they were before. Duh. If only they weren't forcing the touch start screen on us, screwing up the search functionality and pushing bits and pieces of system configuration screens (such as user account management) to the touch UI, you might have a point.

It's not about being non-functional, I never said Windows 8 can't be handled with a mouse. It's about using the right tool for the job, and a touch UI is not the best tool to have for non-touch device. Seriously, the only thing that's mindblowing here is that this simple fact needs to be explained. You could drive a car using cursor keys on a keyboard instead of a steering wheel and pedals, and by your own criteria, since that doesn't make it non-functional, that would make it alright. I'd love to see car manufacturers trying to pull something like that.

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

OK People! I'm tired of this, HERE is what your going to do! Proceed to your local computer superstore and purchase Logitech Touchpad T650! CompUSA.com | 910-003057 | Logitech Wireless Rechargeable Touchpad T650 It's only $80.00 US, now your non-touch monitor WILL be touch. Problem solved. You get the best of both worlds now.

 

[Mystere]

Of course that's ridiculous. What's not ridiculous is to say that Windows 7 is clearly not designed for touch (though that doesn't mean that you cannot use it as such). Now with Windows 8 Microsoft has just reverted that and designed for touch first this time. The same way that Windows 7 was wrong for touch devices, now WIndows 8 is wrong for non-touch devices.

No, it's not. And nobody has been able to explain exactly why they think that. You certainly have not been able to explain it. How is it "wrong" for non-touch? Please, enlighten us.

Tell you what, If you can *clearly* explain why a keyboard and mouse do not work with Windows 8, or even why a keyboard and mouse do not work as well as they used to in Windows 7, then I won't ever post another word on this topic. How about it?

Well, the fact that you're unable to grasp it doesn't mean it's BS. Ask Apple, they seem to know the difference quite well and that's why they keep their mobile and desktop versions of their OS separated. Of course, they're not the ones that are five years late to the game so they don't need to mess up their desktop OS just so they can have a hope of getting traction on their phones and tablets... which is the only reason Windows 8 was designed the way it was.

I can't grasp vaporous concepts. If it was so easy to grasp, you should be able to explain it, yet you can't, nor has anyone else. Just because it was designed to be touch friendly doesn't mean it's not also keyboard and mouse friendly. They are not mutually exclusive, just like a keyboard and a mouse are not mutually exclusive. Back when Windows first came out, people made the same arguments about the mouse, and they turned out to be very wrong.

By the way, Apple *IS* merging iOS and MacOS. Just like Google is merging ChromeOS and Android. Even Ubuntu is moving in this direction, though they have no mobile OS to merge with.

Sure, the parts that remain exactly as in Windows 7 are identical to what they were before. Duh. If only they weren't forcing the touch start screen on us, screwing up the search functionality and pushing bits and pieces of system configuration screens (such as user account management) to the touch UI, you might have a point.

The fact that I don't have any touch input devices, and I don't even use the mouse with the start screen most of the time says you're wrong. I simply tap the start key, and either start typing what I want to run, or I use the cursor to move to it. It takes a fraction of a second to start any app I want.

Screwing up search functionality? How? It works just fine for me. I think most people who criticize the start screen have not invested the time to learn how to use it effectively, because all the arguments I hear sound like people that don't use it the way I do.

Again, explain how the user management screen is a "touch ui".

It's not about being non-functional, I never said Windows 8 can't be handled with a mouse. It's about using the right tool for the job, and a touch UI is not the best tool to have for non-touch device.

Please explain how a UI that is designed to be touch friendly can't also be keyboard and mouse friendly. This is the gist of the argument, the claim that because it's designed to work with touch means it's not designed to work with a keyboard and mouse. Nobody has yet been able to explain that assumption. And so long as nobody can explain that, I will continue to call BS on it when people say it.

Seriously, the only thing that's mindblowing here is that this simple fact needs to be explained. You could drive a car using cursor keys on a keyboard instead of a steering wheel and pedals, and by your own criteria, since that doesn't make it non-functional, that would make it alright. I'd love to see car manufacturers trying to pull something like that.

No, it's that this "simple fact" CAN'T be explained. By the way, there are in fact numerous different vehicle control mechanisms. Ever driven a bobcat? No steering wheel in sight. Ever driven a car with shift paddles? The reason cars come with steering wheels and pedals is because they are for a very specific kind of drive train, which is a two wheeled steering system. If you go to a 4 wheeled steering system (like a bobcat) then a single wheel no longer makes sense.

 

[mcnulty]

Tell you what, If you can *clearly* explain why a keyboard and mouse do not work with Windows 8, or even why a keyboard and mouse do not work as well as they used to in Windows 7, then I won't ever post another word on this topic. How about it?

So you really think that the design of UI elements on a typical touch-based interface is not driven by the fact that it's designed for imprecise means of input (the finger) and relatively small screen sizes? You really think that a UI that is optimal for that kind of constraints can also be optimal at the same time without modification whatsoever for a precision based input device such as a mouse and large screens? If that's the case, you really are beyond help.

It's been explained a thousand times, you just couldn't care less. Which is fine, by the way. Like I said, perhaps you don't need more than a phone UI upscaled to a huge monitor. Which is absurd is that you keep denying that that kind of UI is simply suboptimal in such an environment.

No, it's that this "simple fact" CAN'T be explained. By the way, there are in fact numerous different vehicle control mechanisms. Ever driven a bobcat? No steering wheel in sight. Ever driven a car with shift paddles? The reason cars come with steering wheels and pedals is because they are for a very specific kind of drive train, which is a two wheeled steering system. If you go to a 4 wheeled steering system (like a bobcat) then a single wheel no longer makes sense.

That's great! You've just described for yourself what "right tool for the job" means. That's why I have nothing against touch-based user interfaces on devices designed and meant for touch, such as phones and tablets.

 

[Mystere]

Tell you what, If you can *clearly* explain why a keyboard and mouse do not work with Windows 8, or even why a keyboard and mouse do not work as well as they used to in Windows 7, then I won't ever post another word on this topic. How about it?

So you really think that the design of UI elements on a typical touch-based interface is not driven by the fact that it's designed for imprecise means of input (the finger) and relatively small screen sizes? You really think that a UI that is optimal for that kind of constraints can also be optimal at the same time without modification whatsoever for a precision based input device such as a mouse and large screens? If that's the case, you really are beyond help.

That's not an explanation. Again, because it's touch friendly doesn't mean it's keyboard and mouse unfriendly. I'm not asking you to explain why it's friendly for touch. I'm asking you to explain why it's unfriendly to keyboard and mouse. Your answer seems to be "Because it is". That's not good enough.

It's been explained a thousand times, you just couldn't care less.

No, it hasn't. If it has, then please point me to one of these "thousand" explanations. Can't do that either? I'm sensing a pattern here.

The size of the monitor is irrelevant. Windows 8 is DPI aware. If you put it on a bigger screen, the screen elements stay the same size, you just get more of them. This is the way it should be. And that has nothing to do with a keyboard or mouse.

 

[Tepid]

I agree here with Mystere. The system works just find with a keyboard and mouse.
There is no constraints in using such. Seriously, there isn't. Scrolling works as does click and hold.
So I would ask the same question, how specifically does it not work with keyboard/mouse?
I haven't found any yet.

And Mystere is right about the DPI awareness. Different resolutions, not necessarily screen size makes the difference in how many rows of tiles there are. I do wish that this could be modified, maybe Win Blue will give some more modification control.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

I agree here with Mystere. The system works just find with a keyboard and mouse.
There is no constraints in using such. Seriously, there isn't. Scrolling works as does click and hold.
So I would ask the same question, how specifically does it not worker with keyboard/mouse?
I haven't found any yet.

And Mystere is right about the DPI awareness. Different resolutions, not necessarily screen size makes the difference in how many rows of tiles there are. I do wish that this could be modified, maybe Win Blue will give some more modification control.

I agree also. Keyboard and mouse work just as in past OSs. WinKey opens the Start Screen just as the Start Menu. Press again -> Gone. There are some added keyboard shortcuts created specifically for 8 to get to menus and charms.

I too wish I could shrink the tiles so as to fit the whole Start Screen onto my seventeen-inch monitor instead of scrolling. But then scrolling works with the mouse same as in the Start Menu. All arrow keys, page up or down keys, End key, and Home key all work well within the Start Screen also.

 

[Gavin]

No, it hasn't. If it has, then please point me to one of these "thousand" explanations. Can't do that either? I'm sensing a pattern here.

.

Yes, i know what you mean Mystere.I had exactly the same problem with getting someone to point to quotes to prove what was being said, and all i got was quotes back, where the words were being changed from the original quote as fact, and never once was the person able to back up where the original posts were to be able to back up their argument.Plus the person started making things up and slandering the person with lies. So yes, i am sensing a pattern here also.
It is rather annoying isn`t it?

 

[Bo Jangles]

"Let's not BICKER and ARGUE about who killed who- ​This is supposed to be a HAPPY occasion!"

 

[SIW2]

+1.

Seems to me a perfectly reasonable statement - and perfectly obvious what the OP meant.

Absolute truth. Anyone who's calling Windows 8 the next Vista has no idea what they are speaking about. Vista's issue was that hardware OEMs weren't up to snuff. If you bought a new computer at VIsta's release without Nvidia drivers and only 512 MB of memory, it would appear that Vista was awful. However, those who understand computers, especially someone running a repair shop, should know the difference between poor OEM support and a typical learning curve.

While Vista's and Windows 8's "problems" are compeltely different. I think it might be accurate to say that Windows 8 could be another Vista. I.e. the perception of the OS will be so bad and the rumors and press so negative that it will languish as Vista did until MS "Fixes" it with a future update.

 

[Whiznot]

Windows 8 will be a disaster much worse than Vista. I will be "downgrading" many users to Windows 7. Thanks for the business.

 

[Bo Jangles]

Windows 8 will be a disaster much worse than Vista. I will be "downgrading" many users to Windows 7. Thanks for the business.

I was SO ready to downgrade my first day or two with Win8. Now, a week or two later, I love it! Every day I find new features that makes switching back to Windows 7 seem like a loss of functionality.

 

[mbratch]

I was SO ready to downgrade my first day or two with Win8. Now, a week or two later, I love it! Every day I find new features that makes switching back to Windows 7 seem like a loss of functionality.

Could you list some of the new features you have found most useful?