Is Start Menu really matter?

[Ray8]

I'm assuming that Microsoft is reading these forums and comments being made by experienced users should be noted, as they form the backbone of their customer base. What is expressed in these forums is very likely a microcosm of what is being expressed in the broader environment and not just what comes out of focus groups.

This is the place where you get honest opinions and not ones that may well be somewhat reserved when in a closed group environment. Focus groups are frequently dominated by a few vocal individuals, no matter how carefully moderated, and what's not said is often the most important.

And from what I've been hearing here are not the cries of Luddites not wanting change, but those of frustrated users who see both sides and have to ask why.

 

[jbfoster]

for me yes it does matter.

Do I need it, No

Do I want it, yes

 

[darvin]

Hello Darvin. Welcome to EightForums.

There are many people here that speak other languages that post in English. I cannot speak a second language fluently. So, they are smarter than me.

No, I get that. But if I used a language incorrectly I would want to know.

For hardcore computer users I don't see 8 as being a problem. It's not that hard to adapt. The real problem will be with the mass number of users of XP, Vista and 7. People coming from the tablet or phone will adapt fairly easily. Problem is, the user base desktops is huge. General users and IT guys are just not going to like it one bit. Not that they ever liked any other release of Windows but I think with this one they have some seriously valid user issues.

My only real complaint is that they didn't make it an option. I've always hounded developers at the companies I have worked for to keep legacy features as an option. At lest until people can make the transition.

 

[Mystere]

"Honest Opinions" are a touchy subject. Most of the opinions people throw about are because they have various assumptions, which typically are incorrect.

Windows 8 is two OS's, and it's a transitionary OS from one to another. One should look at this as they would any appliance they might buy. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't whine because it's not a different appliance, but rather buy that other appliance instead.

In other words, if you want Windows 8 to be Windows 7, you will be disappointed. It doesn't matter if your opinion is honest or not. Windows 8 is *NOT* Windows 7, so complaining that it's not is pointless.

 

[darvin]

I'm assuming that Microsoft is reading these forums.

I seriously doubt that anyone at Microsoft is reading these forums. They likely have their hands full with their own community forums.

Windows - Microsoft Community

 

[darvin]

"Honest Opinions" are a touchy subject. Most of the opinions people throw about are because they have various assumptions, which typically are incorrect.

Windows 8 is two OS's, and it's a transitionary OS from one to another. One should look at this as they would any appliance they might buy. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't whine because it's not a different appliance, but rather buy that other appliance instead.

In other words, if you want Windows 8 to be Windows 7, you will be disappointed. It doesn't matter if your opinion is honest or not. Windows 8 is *NOT* Windows 7, so complaining that it's not is pointless.

That's not totally fair. If you want to keep your system up to date so that it runs the latest releases, has the best protection against malware and viruses.... or you want a new system, at some point you will be forced to upgrade. Companies just can't continue to support old operating systems forever.

And I question the need for two operating systems on one system. There is no reason that you cannot run Windows Metro apps on an updated Windows operating system. Hell I have been running Android apps on my Windows 7 system pretty much seamlessly for some time now. If a third party vendor can make an emulator for Windows 7, why can't MS make an even better one?

Right now I have very little use for Metro. That will ONLY change IF somehow MS can lure me (and other people) away from the iPhone and Android to a Windows 8 phone/tablet. They are just too far behind right now but I think Metro is a way to try and force the issue.

 

[Mystere]

That's not totally fair. If you want to keep your system up to date so that it runs the latest releases, has the best protection against malware and viruses.... or you want a new system, at some point you will be forced to upgrade. Companies just can't continue to support old operating systems forever.

Then I suggest you convince your application developers to continue supporting Windows 7 for a long time to come.

And I question the need for two operating systems on one system. There is no reason that you cannot run Windows Metro apps on an updated Windows operating system. Hell I have been running Android apps on my Windows 7 system pretty much seamlessly for some time now. If a third party vendor can make an emulator for Windows 7, why can't MS make an even better one?

You are still not understanding. The purpose of Windows 8 is to be a transitionary OS. The purpose is not to have 2 OS's. The purpose is to move people to using Metro. This will be a long process which will require both OS's to be present for a long time to come.

If you simply put 8 on tablets and phones, then desktop users would never be able to migrate.

Right now I have very little use for Metro. That will ONLY change IF somehow MS can lure me (and other people) away from the iPhone and Android to a Windows 8 phone/tablet. They are just too far behind right now but I think Metro is a way to try and force the issue.

I'm seeing a lot of people migrating to Windows Phone 8 from iPhones and Android devices. Particularly developers. They see Metro as a new frontier where they have a chance to make a name for themselves. It's hard to compete in existing ecosystems. Why would someone buy your note taking app when they already have 300 of them?

And android is a wasteland as far as most apps are concerned. Companies like Rovio all but stopped trying to get users to purchase apps, because Android users don't buy apps. And apple's approval process is way too strict for many developers.

 

[jbfoster]

Windows 8 to me is not 2 OS's. It support 2 different type of apps. Metro Apps and Desktop apps.


Desktop apps is just regular Windows software. They are more advanced than Metro apps. More features and looks more professional. These will not run on the Windows RT Surface tablet.

Metro apps are basic and not as polished. Not as many features as Desktop apps. Will run on the desktop PC and Windows RT.

 

[Mystere]

No. Metro is a totally different OS. It's not Win32. That's the thing most people don't understand.

Metro apps are as much a different OS as OSX is, or Android is, or iOS is..

 

[darvin]

Then I suggest you convince your application developers to continue supporting Windows 7 for a long time to come.

You are still not understanding. The purpose of Windows 8 is to be a transitionary OS. The purpose is not to have 2 OS's. The purpose is to move people to using Metro. This will be a long process which will require both OS's to be present for a long time to come.

If you simply put 8 on tablets and phones, then desktop users would never be able to migrate.

I'm seeing a lot of people migrating to Windows Phone 8 from iPhones and Android devices. Particularly developers. They see Metro as a new frontier where they have a chance to make a name for themselves. It's hard to compete in existing ecosystems. Why would someone buy your note taking app when they already have 300 of them?

And android is a wasteland as far as most apps are concerned. Companies like Rovio all but stopped trying to get users to purchase apps, because Android users don't buy apps. And apple's approval process is way too strict for many developers.

Look I have worked in QE (QA) and no matter how loud you scream or cry you're not going to convince a company to continue to test all operating systems. They just don't have the bandwidth or the money. So as I said, the average users is forced to update. It's a real world problem but not one that I personally have. But to ignore it is to just put blinders on and bang the MS drum blindly.

I am not saying that it's not a transnational OS. There is just little to no integration between the two at this time. This is why it creates a number of problems for the traditional Windows user. There should have been more transition built in to the OS. That could appease both the average user and the IT guys.

Why couldn't they just have run Metro as a desktop app? It could be kept running in the background and updating all the time. Instead, it's the main screen when you start. Do you really think anyone running a desktop at a company has any use for that? Of course not. They want to get to the apps they use to get their work done. But as is obvious from the outcry, they feel Metro gets in the way of work.

Look, you are thinking I personally somehow don't like Windows 8. But I know I can configure it the way I want it. My doctor, my boss, my mom, sister.... the average user will be frustrated and I doubt it's in any way going to get them to give up their iPhone or Android. Developers can develop all they want. If no one is using it, it does little good.

From my Google search, it appears that income for developers that develop both iPhone and Android apps are seeing about a 60% - 80% return on their Android sales. The concept that developers are not seeing income from Android apps is simple to disprove and I cannot imagine that anyone is yet to see large profits from Windows phones. There just are not enough of them. Besides, free apps are often paid for by ads.

Why should someone buy your note app? Unless it's a much better one, one worth the money, then why bother to make one?

FWIW, I want Windows 8 to succeed. But I have a feeling this may go the way of Windows Me. Regardless I am a long time Windows fan and I will be using 8 at least until 9 arrives. So don't feel you need to convince me.

Darv

 

[Ray8]

"Honest Opinions" are a touchy subject. Most of the opinions people throw about are because they have various assumptions, which typically are incorrect.

Windows 8 is two OS's, and it's a transitionary OS from one to another. One should look at this as they would any appliance they might buy. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't whine because it's not a different appliance, but rather buy that other appliance instead.

In other words, if you want Windows 8 to be Windows 7, you will be disappointed. It doesn't matter if your opinion is honest or not. Windows 8 is *NOT* Windows 7, so complaining that it's not is pointless.

I think that you're being somewhat disparaging to the vast level of experience on this forum. Yes, some are beating a personal agenda , for whatever reason, but the comments made by many are reasonable and valid.

Windows 8 is not a multiple OS, it is one OS but has two interface options. The Modern interface is the Microsoft preferred interface, as it blends in with the phone OS and conceivably other options that may be in the wind. It's a simplified interface that serves a valid purpose, but not every purpose.

And 'appliance' has nothing to do with the OS. A tablet is an appliance, a phone is an appliance, a PC is an appliance, your TV, your car multi-purpose head unit etc are all appliances. All of these devices depend on an underlying OS and clearly Microsoft is trying to unify the OS (or rather the interface) into a common theme. That's all well and good, when it works.

But when it doesn't work, that's when it falls apart. I have just been working on a series of documents where I have to review Excel, Word and PDF documents, pretty much at the same time, and read associated emails, and there is no way that I could do that comfortably using the Modern interface, if it were possible under the current 'apps' scenario. I need the desktop environment and my dual screens (three would sometimes be nice) to work effectively.

The OS itself offers some significant improvements over Windows 7, as it should, and using third party software, you can use the OS in the same manner as you can with Windows 7. But you shouldn't have to use third party software to do that, it should be native in Windows 8 to cater to those who work with complex, multi-dimensional activities.

People are providing valid feedback and I'll bet my left procreation organ that Microsoft is reading comments on this forum.

 

[jbfoster]

We are getting off topic......

 

[Mystere]

Look I have worked in QE (QA) and no matter how loud you scream or cry you're not going to convince a company to continue to test all operating systems.

No, but if the majority of their users continue to use Windows 7, then they will certainly continue to keep supporting it. It's really that simple. If you think Windows 8 will be the failure you claim it will be, then there shouldn't be any concern. Everyone will simply stay with 7, and app devs will continue to support it.

If, however, you end up in the minority, all bets are off. The minority does not dictate the future.

I am not saying that it's not a transnational OS. There is just little to no integration between the two at this time. This is why it creates a number of problems for the traditional Windows user. There should have been more transition built in to the OS. That could appease both the average user and the IT guys.

And there will be less and less integration between the two systems as Metro becomes the primary OS. Metro will improve, and it will pick up more of the functions of the desktop. More than likely what you suggest WILL happen, but in the reverse. Desktop apps will become the background VM and run in Metro.

Why couldn't they just have run Metro as a desktop app? It could be kept running in the background and updating all the time. Instead, it's the main screen when you start. Do you really think anyone running a desktop at a company has any use for that? Of course not. They want to get to the apps they use to get their work done. But as is obvious from the outcry, they feel Metro gets in the way of work.

I fail to see why the start screen has any problems working in an enterprise environment. In fact, the new Windows Server 2012 has a start screen as well, and it is solely for enterprise functions. The start screen, despite many complaints to the contrary, is very unintrusive. It make take over the screen, but it gets out of the way as soon as you select something.. bringing you right back to where you were. It only comes up when you command it to, so it's not jumping in your face without your bidding (like the UAC prompts, for instance).

Look, you are thinking I personally somehow don't like Windows 8. But I know I can configure it the way I want it. My doctor, my boss, my mom, sister.... the average user will be frustrated and I doubt it's in any way going to get them to give up their iPhone or Android. Developers can develop all they want. If no one is using it, it does little good.

An average user will simply adapt. People start using alien user interfaces all the time. New TV's, new cars, new web pages.. Average people just need to figure out how to start the apps they want, and then they're done. This is an age old argument from authority fallacy.. you think you know what will happen. You think you know people will be frustrated. And they might be.. for a day or two.. then it will become the new normal.

From my Google search, it appears that income for developers that develop both iPhone and Android apps are seeing about a 60% - 80% return on their Android sales. The concept that developers are not seeing income from Android apps is simple to disprove and I cannot imagine that anyone is yet to see large profits from Windows phones. There just are not enough of them. Besides, free apps are often paid for by ads.

Yes, on android nearly all revenue comes from ad sales. not app sales. Rovio (makers of Angry birds) basically released all their apps on Android as ad supported only, because they were making no sales on apps themselves. I didn't say people didn't make money on Android, I was talking about app sales. People have found ways to get income.

FWIW, I want Windows 8 to succeed. But I have a feeling this may go the way of Windows Me. Regardless I am a long time Windows fan and I will be using 8 at least until 9 arrives. So don't feel you need to convince me.

This has nothing to do with being a fan. It's about understanding the reasons behind the changes, and the direction that Windows is headed.

The biggest problem people have is that their frame of mind when using 8 is that it's supposed to be an improved 7. It's not supposed to be that, it's supposed to be a transition to a new OS, one that is more scalable and adaptable to new directions in computing.

 

[Mystere]

Windows 8 is not a multiple OS, it is one OS but has two interface options. The Modern interface is the Microsoft preferred interface, as it blends in with the phone OS and conceivably other options that may be in the wind. It's a simplified interface that serves a valid purpose, but not every purpose.

No, it's not. Windows 8 *IS* two different OS's. Two *COMPLETELY* different OS's. It's not just a new UI, it's a totally new OS.

 

[mbratch]

People can get used to anything. I find it funny that "you get used to it" is posited as any kind of reason to call it "good". I don't think I have yet seen an opinion from a Windows 8 user that said, "I prefer the Metro UI on my non-touch-screen laptop or desktop because I can do my application work more efficiently or more easily". What I hear are things like, "I got used to it" or "It's k00l" or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I adapt to new technologies rather well and can usually realize the benefit of something new to my way of working. But Windows 8 Metro UI doesn't do it for me on a non-touch machine. I'm sure it's wonderful on a smart phone or tablet. So given that Windows 8 only offers me two UI options: Metro or "classic desktop". I choose the latter, with the addition of a 3rd party start menu to get at things more quickly. If/when Metro improves for the non-touch screens, or the non-touch devices just go away and we're all using tablets, then I'll be there.

 

[mbratch]

No, it's not. Windows 8 *IS* two different OS's. Two *COMPLETELY* different OS's. It's not just a new UI, it's a totally new OS.

Could you explain this position with some information? You might start by providing your definition of "operating system".

 

[mdmd]

I have yet seen an opinion from a Windows 8 user that said, "I prefer the Metro UI on my non-touch-screen laptop or desktop because I can do my application work more efficiently or more easily"

Here it is...
Absolutely ! > I prefer the Metro UI on my non-touch-screen laptop or desktop because I can do my application work more efficiently or more easily !
The start screen is a beautiful thing.

 

[Mystere]

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. It's just a UI, and I have to use hundreds of them every day (every web page is a new UI to figure out, after all).

I understand the reasons behind the UI, and that makes it easy to understand and accept. It makes sense. I feel most people that don't like Metro don't understand the reasons behind it, or have incorrect assumptions about it. I also understand that it's a version 1, and it will grow and improve, but it can't do that if we don't use it and generate the need for it.

It's perfectly fine to only use the desktop. Or use Metro for the things it's good at, such as weather apps, video and and radio apps, etc.. I also enjoy using it for note taking and what not.

 

[symbiont]

I have yet seen an opinion from a Windows 8 user that said, "I prefer the Metro UI on my non-touch-screen laptop or desktop because I can do my application work more efficiently or more easily"

Here it is...
Absolutely ! > I prefer the Metro UI on my non-touch-screen laptop or desktop because I can do my application work more efficiently or more easily !
The start screen is a beautiful thing.

View attachment 12484

This is one of the problems with this industry....people find things that look like that, beautiful

 

[mdmd]

This is one of the problems with this industry....people find things that look like that, beautiful

I know. How disgusting, useless, offensive, unintuitive, jarring, awkward, repugnant, difficult, ugly, ... etc
not fit for purpose.

This is much, much, much, much, much, much, better
I love sub, sub, sub, sub, sub, nesting