My Mini Win 8 Review as a desktop user

[R0bR]

And I'm just saying Snipping tool is an inferior screenshooting program to what the competition had before Windows 8. That's a fact.

And this is an issue with Windows 8 because? You can add a shortcut key to the snipping tool as well so that you can invoke it instantly as well. You're right that you can't take an instant screen shot with the snipping tool but it launches giving you the option to either full screen, selective or window snapshot. But really who cares, OSX has things that are inferior to Windows as well, I certainly wouldn't buy OSX over Windows because of screen capture efficiency.

As for time there are plenty of free Clock Apps available now that you can put time on a tile when in Metro, no more mouse movement required.

Lastly, mouse and keyboard works fine...keyboard and Touch Mouse with gestures works great.

 

[Coke Robot]

Rich, ( are you a drummer? )

The issue that thinking people have is not to do with the UI itself.

It is more about the direction MS is moving with win8 - taking away control and choice from the user and pushing them way MS wants them to go.

To someone who only clicks/jabs at the screen and does basic things like browsing, emailing, going on twitbook, etc - they won't notice.

Therefore it is easy for MS to lead them where MS wants them to go - and that is not a good place.

No, people are just more against the new UI.

 

[BuddyRich]

Of course if they did that, they would lose out on moving desktop apps to the app store, where they presumably won't get a cut, which is what forcing Metro is all about.

Why is Microsoft getting a cut such a bad thing? They built and maintain the infrastructure that houses all the apps, they ensure that these Apps aren't pirated so that the developers can code in confidence and make their money, they ensure that the Apps are clean of malware etc. They even drop their take if the App sells well to encourage better apps to be made. It's funny that non developers complain about this but the many developers that create Apps don't have an issue with it. Also, if you're against it then simply don't by Apps, you're not forced to.

In and of itself its not. Its even a smart thing for them to do for their benefit. Though to be fair I never asked for or wanted them to build that structure, I was perfectly capable of going to a website and downloading my own app, or even a B&M store, or using a competitor like Steam to get digitally distributed goods. And in Windows 8 I still have that choice to use the app store or not, though I am limited to sticking to why side of the fence or the other, with no mingling of the two.

I was merely speculating what will happen if they do eventually close off the desktop in favor of Metro. A lot of use cases are not suitable to Metro and touch input. I gave a few examples. MS was great because it was a big open platform, now they want to close it off. Sure the other guys have done so as well, but that doesn't mean I like that they have done it either. I like have control of my file system, i like having one app talk to another app in a non-siloed desktop environment. I like batch type workflows.

 

[Fredledingue]

This isn't the first time Microsoft has done this. Windows 7 (which everyone loves) no longer allows you to go back to the classic start menu, or the classic UI.

Please define classic start menu. It's pretty much the same since W95, take or give. All of a sudden it's not there.

Microsoft has basically given up on supporting such legacy things because doing so is an incredible support burden on them, and doing so greatly reduces their ability to make real, meaningful changes.

Microsoft shouldn't worry now: They won't have to update or maintain the free hacks to restore Start Menu and disable Metro. Good way to pass the burden to others. Must not be that a huge burden if others can do it for free.

The thing you are not taking into account, however, is that Metro *WILL* mature. It will get better.

Like the widgets in Vista were supposed to mature too? Metro has to survive at least until the next version to start to evolve.

---

My question is why and how would you expect Metro, a non-Windows environement to evolve or to be used at all while you already hae the far supperior Windows enironement nearby? How would you make it better to the point where one would chose to use it instead of Windows? ...I guess... an answer at random... By making its apps windowable...?

How exactly can you claim to simultaneously fear that Metro is the way Microsoft wants to go, and claim it's not the way that it's going to go? That seems like a confusing stance.

My fear is that in the future some applications, some services, could be unavailable without Metro. "To view this page you need to use a browser on the Metro interface. Please upgrade your OS to a version which supports Metro"

---

At the same time I'm confident I'm not the only one who don't want that. I'm not sure the Metro concept is going to succeed. IMO it's going to fail because it has no advantage over Windows.

---

Even if Metro Apps mature into something as useful as similar Windows apps, then I still don't seen why we need to run them inside the Metro subsystem instead of Windows. I'd push the question even further but not without some irony: what's the advantage of Metro over DOS?

---

Moreover the fact that they don't want to let it just for those who like, that they want to make it the future of computers makes it even riskier, even more likely to fail. If they let poeple use it as they like, Metro may gradualy enter the habit of poeple and become mainstream like Windows. If they push it at any price, forcing it to the poeple, they will face vociferous rejection. Fascism has never been a successful policy.

---

Microsoft should give people choice. Start menu is gone, but it can be returned with third party apps.

No, Microsoft has no intention of doing so. It's not going to happen.

So MS has no intention of leting poeple using third party to bring back the Start Menu? How much money are they going to spend to avoid that to happen? I don't think it's een possible. Programming a mock Start Menu is pretty easy to do. Or are they going to sue those who distribute such programs, or add a rule in the user agreement which forbid the use of any third party softwares which alter the appearance of the UI?

 

[Mystere]

You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of things.

Please define classic start menu. It's pretty much the same since W95, take or give. All of a sudden it's not there.

The Start menu changed in XP, but they allowed you to revert to the "Classic" start menu, where you did not have the links to My Computer, My Documents, etc.. Vista introduced a newer menu that had "folders" in it, rather than submenus. But again, MS allowed you to go back. Lots and lots and lots of people were still using the old Windows 9x/2000 style menu even in Vista. Nobody gave the new menu a chance because they would instantly turn it off.

Microsoft shouldn't worry now: They won't have to update or maintain the free hacks to restore Start Menu and disable Metro. Good way to pass the burden to others. Must not be that a huge burden if others can do it for free. Like the widgets in Vista were supposed to mature too? Metro has to survive at least until the next version to start to evolve.

You're not a software developer. You don't understand what supporting something means. If Microsoft supports something, then they will guarantee that it works in future versions, service packs, etc.. Third party apps have no such guarantee, so third parties can do what they want, but MS doesn't have to support it.

My question is why and how would you expect Metro, a non-Windows environement to evolve or to be used at all while you already hae the far supperior Windows enironement nearby? How would you make it better to the point where one would chose to use it instead of Windows? ...I guess... an answer at random... By making its apps windowable...? My fear is that in the future some applications, some services, could be unavailable without Metro. "To view this page you need to use a browser on the Metro interface. Please upgrade your OS to a version which supports Metro"

Web pages don't know what the client is viewing them with. They can't do what you suggest. Any browser can render them. Yes, it used to be that things like ActiveX might require specific things, but this is pretty rare nowadays.

But to answer your point of why they would improve Metro when Win32 is available? Because Win32 is *NOT* available across the full Windows 8 line. It's only available on x86/64 platforms. Win32 apps won't run on Windows RT and Windows Phone 8. Metro apps will. This allows apps to be written run on all three platforms unmodified.

Tablets and phones are HUGE. 100's of millions of devices being sold every year, compared to 100's of thousands of PC's. Metro is NOT going away, because it's not just a fancy gadget system. It's a full OS Api that's used on multiple platforms as the primary OS for apps. If you think phones and tablets are a fad, you will be sorely disappointed.

Moreover the fact that they don't want to let it just for those who like, that they want to make it the future of computers makes it even riskier, even more likely to fail. If they let poeple use it as they like, Metro may gradualy enter the habit of poeple and become mainstream like Windows. If they push it at any price, forcing it to the poeple, they will face vociferous rejection. Fascism has never been a successful policy.

Yes, Metro will eventually become the mainstream, and maybe not as far off as some may think. Win32 will still be there for decades to come, but Metro is going to slowly take over with new apps. And no, there won't be much rejection, because by then people will have gradually migrated to having the majority of their apps be Metro apps.

Microsoft should give people choice. Start menu is gone, but it can be returned with third party apps.

No, Microsoft has no intention of doing so. It's not going to happen.

So MS has no intention of leting poeple using third party to bring back the Start Menu? How much money are they going to spend to avoid that to happen? I don't think it's een possible. Programming a mock Start Menu is pretty easy to do. Or are they going to sue those who distribute such programs, or add a rule in the user agreement which forbid the use of any third party softwares which alter the appearance of the UI?

You misunderstand what I said. I was talking about Microsoft bringing the start menu back. It's not going to happen. Third parties can do whatever they want, but there's no guarantee the techniques they're using will continue to work from version to version, or even patch to patch.

 

[Fredledingue]

The Start menu changed in XP, but they allowed you to revert to the "Classic" start menu, where you did not have the links to My Computer, My Documents, etc.. Vista introduced a newer menu that had "folders" in it, rather than submenus. But again, MS allowed you to go back. Lots and lots and lots of people were still using the old Windows 9x/2000 style menu even in Vista. Nobody gave the new menu a chance because they would instantly turn it off

Thanks for your answers Mystere. My experience with every computers I'v been on is that the Start Menu always gave me what I expected to find in a Start Menu. I couldn't notice whether it was folders or submenus. I didn't realy paid attention as long as it worked.

You're not a software developer. You don't understand what supporting something means. If Microsoft supports something, then they will guarantee that it works in future versions, service packs, etc..

I don't believe MS hasn't enough resources to maintain a classic Start Menu. What's that in this Start Menu that would be such a burden? It's not a different product. It's just a feature. Features don't require special maintenance. Especialy a Start Menu which is nothing but columns of shortcuts (and a search UI).

Web pages don't know what the client is viewing them with.

Every webmaster has the code to detect your OS and your browser version whatever the case, even when javascript is disabled. And this independantly of what you set as identification string (which identifies your browser type and version). When on W98 I always browse with javascript disabled and at least every second website is giving me a message that my browser is outdated and it's a real PIA. I even saw such warnings on a Vista (IE7?) computer recently!

---

I'm sure they already know how to detect the Metro environement and how to act accordingly. That's the first thing a webmaster will try to do.

But to answer your point of why they would improve Metro when Win32 is available? Because Win32 is *NOT* available across the full Windows 8 line. It's only available on x86/64 platforms. Win32 apps won't run on Windows RT and Windows Phone 8. Metro apps will. This allows apps to be written run on all three platforms unmodified

Thanks. I understand better now. But is there a reason why such apps can't run (or MS doesn't want them to run) in a resizeable window?

If you think phones and tablets are a fad, you will be sorely disappointed.

I never said or thought such a thing.

Third parties can do whatever they want, but there's no guarantee the techniques they're using will continue to work from version to version, or even patch to patch.

If they are using common coding language and commonly used APIs and the program works practicaly in stand alone mode, the guarantee is pretty much assured.

 

[Mystere]

I don't believe MS hasn't enough resources to maintain a classic Start Menu. What's that in this Start Menu that would be such a burden? It's not a different product. It's just a feature. Features don't require special maintenance. Especialy a Start Menu which is nothing but columns of shortcuts (and a search UI).

Like I said, you are not a software developer. What seems simple to you is not quite so simple when you have to support it across millions of configurations.

Every webmaster has the code to detect your OS and your browser version whatever the case, even when javascript is disabled. And this independantly of what you set as identification string (which identifies your browser type and version).

This is patently untrue. There are only two methods that can detect which browser it is. Neither is reliable. Those methods are the UA string, which can be changed to say whatever the user wants, and javascript which won't work if JS is disabled (and isn't fully accurate even if it is). More modern browsers have media queries, but that only allows specific files to be downloaded if certain conditions are true, such as the width of the screen equals a certain size.

When on W98 I always browse with javascript disabled and at least every second website is giving me a message that my browser is outdated and it's a real PIA. I even saw such warnings on a Vista (IE7?) computer recently!

That's different , the HTML language has a noscript tag that shows certain code if javascript is disabled. Those sites merely setup the html to say that if javascript is not on. They did not detect which browser you have.

Thanks. I understand better now. But is there a reason why such apps can't run (or MS doesn't want them to run) in a resizeable window?

Creating apps that work on multiple screen sizes is not trivial. Particularly in the mobile space. Look at all the trouble Apple and Android have had. Apple was forced to ensure their screen sizes matched multiples of the iphone size so it could just be doubled. Also, touch is harder to use in a windowed environment. Which window is a touch gesture aimed at? How do you click and drag windows around? It's got issues that need to be solved.

But the truth is, Metro is a first version, and it's going to lack features at first. As new versions come out, it will probably add support for non-full screen apps.

If they are using common coding language and commonly used APIs and the program works practicaly in stand alone mode, the guarantee is pretty much assured.

But that's just it. They're not using any of those. There is no "start menu api". This works by patching executables, or replacing them entirely. When hotfixes and service packs are released, there's no guarantee that anything will continue to work because they're using undocumented ways to do it.

 

[Fredledingue]

Like I said, you are not a software developer. What seems simple to you is not quite so simple when you have to support it across millions of configurations.

As I said, a Start Menu is a very simple thing, which basicaly displays lists of shortcuts. There is nothing to maintain about because it's, old, universal, solid technology. You can modify the whole OS and not have to touch the Start Menu.

---

No, MS remoed it because they want us to use Metro.

This is patently untrue. There are only two methods that can detect which browser it is.

Detecting what browser you use is the obsession of many webmaster and they will do whatever it takes to do it. And they have more than two ways of doing so.

But the truth is, Metro is a first version, and it's going to lack features at first. As new versions come out, it will probably add support for non-full screen apps.

Let's hope so.

They're not using any of those. There is no "start menu api". This works by patching executables, or replacing them entirely. When hotfixes and service packs are released, there's no guarantee that anything will continue to work because they're using undocumented ways to do it.

For the moment, not. But once they will see that it's not working any more they will remedy it. If they come up with a simple, stand alone version which works just like any other software, there is little MS can do against it.

 

[Mystere]

As I said, a Start Menu is a very simple thing, which basicaly displays lists of shortcuts. There is nothing to maintain about because it's, old, universal, solid technology. You can modify the whole OS and not have to touch the Start Menu.

All software has costs. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't want to use the Start page, they obviously do. But they aren't maintaining backwards compatibility with UI elements anymore. And it's NOT simple, because if they keep the old start menu around that means they have to keep the new Start Page compatible with it, which limits how much they can change it in the future.

This is the same reason they do not support the old menus in Office. Doing so limits their options of what they can do in the future, and they have to guarantee compatibility.

Detecting what browser you use is the obsession of many webmaster and they will do whatever it takes to do it. And they have more than two ways of doing so.

Did you actually read that article? There are only two methods there. UA string and Javascript. The conditional comments only works in IE, and it's only client side, so there's no way to get information back to the server. It's only useful for downloading the correct style sheet.

For the moment, not. But once they will see that it's not working any more they will remedy it. If they come up with a simple, stand alone version which works just like any other software, there is little MS can do against it.

I'm not saying Microsoft will do anything to stop it. I'm saying that when software is patched or updated, Microsoft is not going to guarantee any changes they make will not break these apps. And if the guy who created the app is no longer supporting it, you don't have a lot of choice.

 

[Fredledingue]

I don't agree. The Start Menu is a completely different thing which has no interaction with the old Start Menu and in fact, it's not replacing it because it's too different. There is no compatibility to keep.

---

Proof is that they did a new "Start Menu" later, with system tools (and without programs shortcuts). Why did they bother to do a new "System Menu" that will have to be maintained and kept compatible?

---

However I agree with the ribbon because it takes the place of the menu bar and is an improved menu bar.

I'm saying that when software is patched or updated, Microsoft is not going to guarantee any changes they make will not break these apps.

This is valid for any app (save -maybe- Microsoft's apps). It doesn't need to be a Start Menu. A calculator, a word editor or a pdf reader could fail as well. And indeed sometimes softwares, most often drivers fail after an update... How many times did we have the case that stuffs stopped working mysteriousely after an update!

 

[Mystere]

I don't agree. The Start Menu is a completely different thing which has no interaction with the old Start Menu and in fact, it's not replacing it because it's too different. There is no compatibility to keep.

Proof is that they did a new "Start Menu" later, with system tools (and without programs shortcuts). Why did they bother to do a new "System Menu" that will have to be maintained and kept compatible?

I have no idea what you mean by "they did a new start menu later". Your comments make no sense.

This is valid for any app (save -maybe- Microsoft's apps). It doesn't need to be a Start Menu. A calculator, a word editor or a pdf reader could fail as well. And indeed sometimes softwares, most often drivers fail after an update... How many times did we have the case that stuffs stopped working mysteriousely after an update!

No. If an app is using a document API, Microsoft guarantees it will keep working (unless they deprecate it, but in those cases they still give several versions notice before removing it).

If an app uses undocumented functions, there is no such guarantee.

 

[Fredledingue]

About the browser identification, I think we are both right but that none of us is wrong. There is indeed only two ways to actively collect datas about the browser's type and version. However webmaster have developed many tricks to display or not display things accordingly using foreseable uncompatibilities. Nobody on the server side is saying "Ahaaah! He's hasn't got the latest version of his browser, I'm going to show him!". But they can make your browser react as there was. Same with conditional statement. Just more elaborated.

I have no idea what you mean by "they did a new start menu later". Your comments make no sense.

The menu you can access off the desktop. It was added later. Of course it's not a Start Menu, but a look-alike.