What Windows 8 should have provided

[BillWindows]

When they built Vista, they put in all the glitz and glamour under the sun, people weren't happy.

This time they stripped it to its bare bones, people aren't happy.


With XP, people weren't happy


With ME, people weren't happy


I suppose when you're building an operating system for close to a billion people and nearly as many configurations of computers etc. you're going to be stepping on a few toes.


When you look at Apple they've got less than a handful of configurations devided between two OS and yet they're always making mistakes, so I think MS is doing a reasonable job.

 

[Ray8]

You still don't understand. I will try and explain with an illustration, but that will take a bit of time.

 

[BillWindows]

You still don't understand. I will try and explain with an illustration, but that will take a bit of time.

Just don't make it a comical illustration, I've seen them all.

I understand, but I also understand where Microsoft is coming from.

I suppose when you look at my online name it's easy to think that I'm just a one eyed Microsoft lover, well that's wrong. I've got 3 iPads an Android tablet and an Android phone, as well as about half a dozen Pcs. Maybe that why I can see what Microsoft is trying to do, because none of theses things play nicely together.

My opinion is that touch is the future, at least for now, tablets are the future and maybe even touch enabled laptops, as well as smartphones of course. Naturally an OS like Vista is not going to be able to bring any of these things together. But a completely stripped down version stands a good chance, I hope they succeed.

 

[Ray8]

This is a very rough illustration of what I'm suggesting Windows 8 should have provided for the desktop user (and maybe even tablet users):



How good would it be if you could size and locate the tiles in any way that you wanted, and in any reasonable number and be actively able to use. You could click on any of the apps and they would remain at that size, unless you wanted them full screen, and be able to interact with them directly.

This would be especially handy for those with multiple monitors, as they could have one as an active information source and the other as the workspace for when doing word processing or whatever. If a Luddite like me can immediately see such an opportunity, and it's already possible to do something similar with desktop programs, why isn't this provided from the outset. Anyone with large/multiple screens is just crying out for some greater flexibility with the apps.

 

[BillWindows]

I don't see anything wrong with what you're trying to achieve in that regard, but lets not forget, that Windows 8 had to be completely stripped down to work across multiple devices.
Im sure that over time Windows 8 will evolve into a much better ecosystem and I'm one of the ones that hopes it does, but they had to start somewhere.

 

[znod]

What 8 needs:

1. Improved full-service start button on desktop
2. Option of starting to desktop or Metro
3. Eliminate inefficiency of having to go back and forth between desktop and metro (e.g.,not starting a task on the desktop and having to use metro before the task is done
4. Get rid of charm terminology
5. Return repair install as an option
6. Clarify system builder/personal-use license
7. Use consistent terminology in desktop and metro areas
8. Get rid of flatness
9. Quit pushing use of MS account
10. Greatly improve functioning of IE in metro area
11. Don't "require" IE to be default for proper functioning
12. Sell "Retail" disc
13. Better deign and looks makeover for metro
14.

I'll post more when I think of them.

These are excellent thoughts. One thing I would say too (in light of your thought on the default browser), is make IE a consistent metro icon on the start screen, not ONLY when it is default but always.

Have you noticed that when Chrome or Firefox is the default browser, IE mysteriously "loses" it's Metro app and becomes desktop only? That's WEIRD.

Thank you. And, yes, on the iE thing; that's part of what I was getting at in item 11.

 

[davidvkimball]

IE could easily do it how Chrome does it instead. Toggles between Metro and Desktop with a setting.

 

[SIW2]

What is you think MS are trying to do, Bill?

Not the way you think they are trying to do it - but what their aims are.

Where do they want to be in 3-5yrs and where do they want the user to be?

 

[Mystere]

IE could easily do it how Chrome does it instead. Toggles between Metro and Desktop with a setting.

Ummm.. they do.

 

[BillWindows]

What is you think MS are trying to do, Bill?

Not the way you think they are trying to do it - but what their aims are.

Where do they want to be in 3-5yrs and where do they want the user to be?

I think they're trying to stay afloat, and really that's all that needs to be said.

I think they're trying to make more money out of us, but maybe in a less painfull way.

I'm positive they want to be in a better position in 3 to 5 years than they are now.

Where do they want the consumer to be, I'd say, buying MS products not Apple and Android.

Do they have the right formula, we'll find out.

What do I want, I want a supercharged Vista with dancing Elephants on the screen. I want a $300 Windows 8 tablet with full Microsoft Office and a Retina display.

 

[davidvkimball]

IE could easily do it how Chrome does it instead. Toggles between Metro and Desktop with a setting.

Ummm.. they do.

Only if you have IE as default. If you don't, the metro IE application basically disappears.

 

[Coke Robot]

Microsoft was heading towards the direction of touch computing since Windows xp, and even further back with Windows 3.11 for Pen Computing! Windows 7 was a touch optimized version, notice the huge Taskbar (that people initially didn't like and eventually was the pinpoint of changes for Windows 8) and huge window control buttons over vista. Notice something here? Touch integration. But a Desktop UI environment doesn't work terribly well with touch, i.e. the start menu specifically.

Even BEFORE Windows 7 was released to retailers, Microsoft already knew Windows 8 was to be focused heavily on touch and tablet computing. Touch wasn't adopted hugely with Windows 7, but it was there with touch AIO PCs, and even some tablet PCs were launched but never gained much traction.

It partly was a marketing move, partly a relevance move for the future, and partly to reinvigorate the ENTIRE company. When was the last time a Windows release caused literally redesigns of concurrent products for that release? Not often, other than Office.

 

[Ray8]

Microsoft was heading towards the direction of touch computing since Windows xp, and even further back with Windows 3.11 for Pen Computing! Windows 7 was a touch optimized version, notice the huge Taskbar (that people initially didn't like and eventually was the pinpoint of changes for Windows 8) and huge window control buttons over vista. Notice something here? Touch integration. But a Desktop UI environment doesn't work terribly well with touch, i.e. the start menu specifically.

Even BEFORE Windows 7 was released to retailers, Microsoft already knew Windows 8 was to be focused heavily on touch and tablet computing. Touch wasn't adopted hugely with Windows 7, but it was there with touch AIO PCs, and even some tablet PCs were launched but never gained much traction.

It partly was a marketing move, partly a relevance move for the future, and partly to reinvigorate the ENTIRE company. When was the last time a Windows release caused literally redesigns of concurrent products for that release? Not often, other than Office.

Then why is the UI such a hatchet job, as far as the desktop is concerned?

 

[Coke Robot]

Microsoft was heading towards the direction of touch computing since Windows xp, and even further back with Windows 3.11 for Pen Computing! Windows 7 was a touch optimized version, notice the huge Taskbar (that people initially didn't like and eventually was the pinpoint of changes for Windows 8) and huge window control buttons over vista. Notice something here? Touch integration. But a Desktop UI environment doesn't work terribly well with touch, i.e. the start menu specifically.

Even BEFORE Windows 7 was released to retailers, Microsoft already knew Windows 8 was to be focused heavily on touch and tablet computing. Touch wasn't adopted hugely with Windows 7, but it was there with touch AIO PCs, and even some tablet PCs were launched but never gained much traction.

It partly was a marketing move, partly a relevance move for the future, and partly to reinvigorate the ENTIRE company. When was the last time a Windows release caused literally redesigns of concurrent products for that release? Not often, other than Office.

Then why is the UI such a hatchet job, as far as the desktop is concerned?

Not really.....

So what, you don't see Desktop at login? Relevant Desktop apps and locations aren't easily accessible/customizable? I don't understand. The function is more like icons within tiles on a colored/patterned background or image through a third party. Sounds like what the Desktop was used for since Windows was first conceived... point and click.

 

[Ray8]

Not really.....

So what, you don't see Desktop at login? Relevant Desktop apps and locations aren't easily accessible/customizable? I don't understand. The function is more like icons within tiles on a colored/patterned background or image through a third party. Sounds like what the Desktop was used for since Windows was first conceived... point and click.

Is the illustration that I provide so difficult to understand? Even pictures seem to fail when describing something patently simple. Those who so valiantly support the status quo, seem incapable of understanding how lame the 'start menu' really is to most desktop users. It puts the PC's menu on another screen completely, rather in the screen where all the work is being done. The apps that are displayed in 'start menu' could have provided so much more functionality and purpose, had they been capable of doing something akin to what I've illustrated.

Microsoft could have provided the option of the 'start menu' to be exactly the way it is now, to satisfy one group, and allow people to modify it and use the active apps for other purposes. That would have been great; for with Classic Shell we could have had a traditional desktop on one screen, as well as active apps on another (for those with multiple screens, which is becoming very common). All we now have are two groups that are completely polarised regarding the UI, as far as desktops are concerned.

And you have a logo saying 'think outside the box', when that is the last thing that you appear to be doing.

 

[Mystere]

The horse is Dead Ray. Stop beating it.

 

[Ray8]

The horse is Dead Ray. Stop beating it.

You first.

 

[Coke Robot]

What about the Start Screen that the menu can't do? All I see is with a start menu Desktop with Windows 8 is a Desktop UI that is even more regarded as an app environment, with metro apps running alongside it. The Start Screen could had been a better executed, like having Desktop locations pinned by default, versus having a Windows 7 Desktop and apps. That's why there is a Start Screen, to bridge those two divides.

 

[Ray8]

What about the Start Screen that the menu can't do? All I see is with a start menu Desktop with Windows 8 is a Desktop UI that is even more regarded as an app environment, with metro apps running alongside it. The Start Screen could had been a better executed, like having Desktop locations pinned by default, versus having a Windows 7 Desktop and apps. That's why there is a Start Screen, to bridge those two divides.

OK, let me try and illustrate this once again, with my Windows 7 desktop with start menu etc, as there's no need to post a picture of what a Windows 8 start menu looks like:



Note three things about the image:

1. I have some shortcuts on the desktop itself for files that I use fairly regularly, but are associated with Excel, so I have a shortcut to the actual file on the desktop.
2. I have a number of shortcuts on the taskbar for programs that I use quite regularly.
3. I have a cascading menu pop up that links to a number of other programs that I use fairly regularly, including Control panel etc.

In Windows 7, I can be doing something such as trying to explain why I think the Windows 8 start menu is flawed, to a member of the Windows 8 forum. At the same time, I get an email notification, that someone on the Windows 8 forum has posted in a thread I'm subscribed to and I can click on the Outlook shortcut and see what it's about. And with the aero pop ups, or whatever they are called, I can just hover over an open link in the taskbar and get a quick look at what's going on. I can also click on the start menu and open up Photoshop to create an image to explain why I think the Windows 8 start menu is flawed and I can also quickly click on the Windows Explorer link in the task bar and bring up screen shots to combine in Photoshop for the illustration.

To do this in the Windows 8 interface, I would have to constantly keep going back to the 'start menu', which is like opening up a completely different program/page and keep repeating this for every action. Now I'm suggesting this on the basis that I don't have Classic Shell or the like and everything is being actioned using the new and fantastic 'start menu'. For a desktop that allows so much more, the Windows 8 solution isn't that great. I simply don't need large icons spread all over a page just for a menu, it's just a waste of space if that's all the icons are able to do.

 

[SIW2]

The great thing about the start screen is that is the portal to MS online services.

They wouldn't want you to ignore that.