fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
Didn't stop me from buying.
Got a sweet laptop and installed 7 on it immediately
Got a sweet laptop and installed 7 on it immediately
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 8 Blamed For Biggest PC Shipment Plunge Ever
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Here's the flaw in that argument - if you believe Sinofsky's original claim that "not that many people use the start menu" -- then WHY IN GODS NAME blow the thing up to full screen?
It makes sense for phones & tablets - thats where it belongs. But defaulting Metro on desktops with no touch capability is just leading someone to water and pushing their face in it.
Because, now the start menu is actually usefull. I now have basically everything that i use on it that would overly clutter my task bar including all the games i currently have installed. It is now big enough to be useful, its like having 2 desktops, 1 fairly static (start) and the other dynamic with piles of crap on it (desktop).
I've gone from using the start menu for something other than a command line maybe once a day to now i'll use it maybe 20-50 times a day. It has been the single best ui change to my windows experience since a sticky taskbar. Also i don't have any touch functionality on any of my pcs.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
It is nice to see that MS actually is put into this position, I can see the panic at MS , we did a bad job and no one is buying a PC.
LOL
Maybe someone can tell the people at MS that they actually need to do something that is beyond change but make it better without asking people to pay for being a tester of that AWESOME GUI.
it is sad but I have to mention http://semiaccurate.com who saw this coming and you can check their latest gloating article on stupid sales number there.
LOL
Maybe someone can tell the people at MS that they actually need to do something that is beyond change but make it better without asking people to pay for being a tester of that AWESOME GUI.
it is sad but I have to mention http://semiaccurate.com who saw this coming and you can check their latest gloating article on stupid sales number there.
So, you are using it as a worse version of the basic desktop, where you could put links to programs you wanted, and even could do named folders to put all the programs of a specific type if you wanted to?
Ok...
No its a better version. You don't need to worry about saving stuff to the desktop and your important links getting lost amongst them. You can separate your working folders/file from your static links. You have a lot more space which allows for the larger icons so that everything is very easy to see. It's more accesible, simply pressing the start button or clicking in the corner of the screen brings up all your links with an easy side scroller (uses the mouse wheel). You can put shortcuts to programs, folders, consoles and URLs.
Your idea of nested shortcuts where programs are in folders on your deskop is redundant because they can be sorted by category but still easily displayed over the whole screen.
Have a look at the image of my start menu and tell me that this doesn't offer advantages over the classic desktop. Also don't forget I still have my regular desktop which has various files, folders and other things that I'm working on.
http://i.imgur.com/j9cCMl6.jpg
Oh that's a load of horse crap. Nobody is willing to say what exactly they MISS about the old versions of Windows that Windows 8 no longer offers. It's just a case of I don't like new feature X, well if you don't like a new feature just don't use it. None of the functionality has been taken away from you.
If someone can please explain the advantages of the old half-screen start menu over the new full-screen start menu, then please go on.
I don't want them to 'fix' or revert the new interface any more than I want to go back to the XP interface. I really like the new start menu and I don't want it to change unless they can do something better and in my opinion the Windows 7 start menu is incredibly inferior, it jumbled, its not nice to use and I never really did utilise it in the years that I had Vista/7. The Windows 8 start menu is good for the sole reason that I ACTUALLY USE IT.
What do you miss about Windows 7? WHAT DO YOU MISS?
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
Because you're one person amongst millions that can dynamically change the way you interact with a Windows OS. Humans are mostly creatures of habit that like to stay within their own comfort bubble.
Man is that term so over used with ignorance...
Here you go: http:///Ze7dfZ
Minus 1 for double post.
Bingo.
Most people barely know how to use the desktop. Now, with Windows 8, you're asking them to flip back and forth between two completely incompatible interfaces, one of which is a complete mystery. Is it really so hard to understand why Joe Average would be intimidated by the prospect of doing that?
People like us who actually know what the [H]ell we're doing are the exception.
That does look dope. But wow, you have.. A LOT of games. What size HD do you have?
Because a large reason why people don't use it is because the windows 7 version is too small to read or did not clearly separate organization folders from actual programs. This is not to say that 8's way is clearly better but did help the organization problem.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
Same here.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
Thank you for elaborating on that, since most of the more aggressive minded Win8 supporters I've had the mispleasure of talking to seem to be in a deep state of denial about it because they either suffer from thick skull syndrome or have the blinders tightly pulled over their eyes.
For some unknown reason they feel the need to self-elevate and take on an elitist attitude causing them to constantly argue that if they can do it, then the rest of humanity should be able to on a whim, as well. Sorry, that's just not human nature for almost everyone outside of this forum, which is almost every typical PC user.
Or other people have better things to do than relearn an interface for no gain in productivity. Especially when learning that interface isn't their job but the means to their real job.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
But they didn't even really get rid of it, they simply moved it ever so slightly to the very corner of the screen and made it only visible by mouse-over. It retains all its former functionality, just better organised, more visible and easier to use.
I just find it really frustrating all the negativity about it when I find it completely unfounded. After moving to Vista, the old Start menu lost most of it's utility with the introduction of a sticky taskbar.
At work I'm forced to utilise the old style Start menu because my PC and the ten thousand plus client PCs I remote into are still using Windows XP. It's incredibly frustrating for me to use as it was back in the days my home PCs used it. I mean you could improve its functionality with organisation of your programs within the menu so that you didn't have to remember some random company name of the software/game you wanted to use was or associate programs that span two separate Start menu folders and remembering which folder the program you were looking for was it.
This sort of scrounging for programs was further made obsolete with the smart search function in the Start menu. For any programs that you didn't have pinned to your taskbar, you could simply start typing in the first few letters of the program and it would be listed in the results. Say if you wanted windows magnifier, you no longer had to remember Programs > Accessories > Ease of Use > Magnifier, you simply had to type 'mag' and there it would appear. This very quickly for me became almost the sole use of the Start menu, and its a feature still included in the new Start menu only now it gives you a full screen to see results for each letter you type.
In fact this 'smart search' feature of the Vista onward start menus has been improved significantly. I remember one of the biggest hurdles to switching to Windows Vista is the fact that they changed the labels of most of the control panel items. This is no longer a problem with the search functionality in the new Windows 8 search. Say you are used to the Windows XP naming scheme such as "add or remove programs" or "accessiblity options" instead of "programs and features" and "ease of access center", you can simply start typing in the old naming scheme and there will be a link to that cpl (see images).
http://i.imgur.com/vUGQIJi.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MPDOBIa.jpg
Or lets say there's some setting for progams in general but you can't remember what its called, simply typing programs brings up an entire page of options (image).
http://i.imgur.com/MRjLe11.jpg
Also the option there to search for Apps, Setting, Files or a wide range of internet searches makes this search function even more powerful and having a full screen that scrolls to the side for your pretty much instant results is far far easier to navigate than the old smart search.
I'm really lost for words as to think what people think the advantages of the old single-column start menu's search function and start menu in general has over the new fullscreen one.
Not to mention the other features of Windows 8 that are really cool such as the unbelievably more powerful and informative Task Manager, which is really just lightyears ahead of its predecessors, which even incorporates commonly used consoles such as services and startup. The added ability to group programs by users adds great functionality for administrators (see images).
http://imgur.com/a/AzPaz
Plus, the nested copying boxes where you can jump the gun and start multiple copying processes and pause them so they don't interfere with each other (image).
http://i.imgur.com/cdLKq8A.jpg
As I said earlier in this thread, I think a lot of issues are coming from all of these 'tech' people not wanting to adapt to changes rather than the new software being flawed. This phobia is passed down the chain through the people that look to these people for advice "oh you don't want to upgrade to Windows 8, the new interface is terrible, Microsoft have really dropped the ball on this". In reality, I'm pretty sure that absent the negativity from the people they get advice from, end users would really snap up this new and wonderful interface.
This is the same thing that relegated Windows Vista to some sort of a joke despite it being far superior to Windows XP, I mean there were issues with Vista such as laptops with 512mb of RAM being sold with it installed. I mean, I got drawn into all the shitcanning people were giving Vista and almost didn't try it for myself, which would've been a huge mistake. On my old PC which had the resourses required to run it well, it dramatically improved performance over XP 64-bit edition, it actually made good use of the 8gb of ram I had with superfetch, it was much easier to use and was far more stable. Aside from finding my feet with overclocking, since Vista came out I've never had a BSOD or fatal Windows crash.
I just feel that people like us in the industry and those who's interest in technology make them some sort of authority with those around them, that it is our responsibility to not just dismiss things. Rather that we should embrace them, learn how to make them work for us so that we can pass that knowledge down the chain. I've installed Windows 8 on around 10 PCs that I have serviced in my spare time and haven't had any complaints about it, none of those people were shitty with or intimidated by the new interface, I showed them how it worked and they hit the ground running. I mean what are you gonna do if someone in your family buys a laptop or whatever with Windows 8, go herp derp we need to downgrade you to Windows 7 cas its so much better. I think that sounds retarded.
I also think that it would be just fine in a corporate environment for places that are already Windows 7 compliant. It would make my day at work easier. You see we have incidents which are sent to use from the helpdesk and service request that have to go through a chain of people for authorisation, which are for things like software installs. At least 2-3 times a week I will get a service request that has gone through this chain to install software only to remote to someones screen to find it is already installed and the user was just simply unable to find it (i know retarded right, but thats what you deal with in IT). If they had the Windows 8 Start menu, I think that those tickets would be eliminated entirely.
/rant
Uh, I'm not about to throw out the baby with the bath water. I've given Suse its chance along side quite a number of other Linux distros. Every time it has fallen short for some reason or another, at the moment my main reasons are.
1. I have 48GB of RAM and Photoshop CS6 x64 just cannot be matched with these sort of resources.
2. I have a tonne of games which I like to play and I despise dual-booting. Windows does everything I need.
I did recently install Ubuntu and loaded up Steam and I was suprised at how few of my games were actually supported in Linux especially with the Gaben Holy Grail of Linux gaming. When only 4 of the 110 games I had at the time are supported, this isn't a viable option. (see image)
http://i.imgur.com/HCz3zYQ.jpg
I mean power to servers and coders that use Linux distros, I mean it certainly has its place... its just doesn't in my house.
Each of my main 2 PCs has about 12TB of storage total cloned with each other and pretty much full. I have a lot more games that aren't installed just sitting in my steam collection. My Steam says I currently have 116 games and I only started using Steam about 9 months ago.. lol.. damn you Gaben! DAMN YOU!
Exactly this.
With out Microsoft agreements, I can load any OS I want on the systems we us in the office, but we are sticking with Windows 7.
A few of our developers have switched to Windows 8, but it's more "I want to run the latest OS" not "I love Windows 8"
I have yet to have anyone in the office ask me when we are going to Windows 8 because they like it so much on thier home system. However, I've had several people ask me how they could get rid on Windows 8 on the new system they bought for home.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
I'm aware of everything you have stated and the improvements in things such as the search, etc. However, if you re-read the size and content of your post, yes, you are able to successfully communicate to pretty much everyone on this forum. However, take the size and content of your post outside to Mary or Joe Average User and you will get a pair of deer eyes in the headlights staring back at you. When you make points to a typical user with phrases such as "moved this", "hid that but it's now more visible and easier to use", expanded on those", "changed these", etc, more often than not, the next thing you will hear from them is "uuuuuuhhhhh...that's just too much/different/weird/I can't understant any of that, so I'm sticking with what I know."
And that's where Win8 has failed in the eyes of so many people: it is such a drastic change to Windows and most average users don't like/can't bear that much change all at once. They are just getting used to and can (somewhat?) quickly find from sheer habit where everything is located in Win XP/Vi/7, and now it's all changed with Win8.
That's not what I've found with the people I've installed it for, and for the most part they're all pretty clueless when it comes to computers. I didn't have to do a big speil like I did here to explain the advantages to those that should already know better, just very quickly showed them how to use it and they were off. I haven't had anyone ring me back so far and ask how do i do whatever.
Not necessarily. It depends on what the users are doing.
For new systems Im buying laptops with 2.8 Ghz i5s (dual core) with 16GB ram
For Desktops Im buying quad core i5s with 8 or 16GB ram
However, for some of the existing office workers, Im upgrading old p4s (single and dual core).
If I had to spend money buying memory or a new OS, then Id likely just replace them.
However, due to our Microsoft contracts, it cost me nothing to upgrade the OS.
I can also reuse memory and drives from other systems I replace.
So the only cost for me is time, and about $6 for USB drive for readyboost
(helps with the old slow drives and the 2GB ram limit on the old systems).
Swap some parts, load a windows 7 image, migrate the users data from XP, and swap their system.
Since the systems are old, I keep a few spares around.
The users are setup with roaming profiles, so if theres a problem I simply swap out the system.
Hold on, you actually think it's organized better? There are no directories on Start. Installing a new program lumps the stuff to the end. I bet I have to use a 3rd party app to alphabetize the tiles.
When you search for programs the contents of every directory is displayed. This is progress?
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
Well, I suppose the demographics between the people we each are interacting with may be very different. Most people that I have talked to about it are co-workers that are quite hard-nosed when it comes to change.
This whole Win8 transition really reminds me of Win3.xx --> Win95 all that time ago. Win95's GUI was designed to be a lot easier to use, but for some reason people just wanted to keep their claws dug in to "old reliable".
That's the exact opposite of what I've experienced setting up new pc's/laptops. They are annoyed to the fact that they want me to put Windows 7 or XP back on. Most could use Win 7 after coming from XP without any training. Not my job to train them again but I did what I could and the still think Metro just gets in the way. All i hear is "why can't I have my desktop back". I tell them to ask MS...and I'm not about to put a 3rd party hack on for them as well and they don't care one bit about the under the hood changes.
Dude, none of the functionality of the old start menu has been lost.
Here are the programs sorted out by installer, if you look its improved because you don't have to mouse over folders to see what's inside them.
http://i.imgur.com/WH7Mzc2.jpg
Here are the programs sorted out alphabetically.
http://i.imgur.com/EOObo8n.jpg
Anything else? Or is this all just a case of, er I don't like the look of it so i'm not gonna bother seeing for myself if its actually good?
Me too, even though it was more reading about it/ talking to older pc geeks rather than experiencing it first hand. I'm "only" 32. This is the same exact situation. Drastic change... OMIGOD!
You shoulda seen the arguments people had for using horses when Henry F. was trying to push his new invention.
You missed the point where on the Start menu there are no directories. Install a program. The tiles are dumped at the rear. The tiles are not alphabetized. I'm referring to Start. Not Apps.
In Apps, every directory is expanded. Now go back an read my original post.
Thats supposed to be better then All Programs Tree View.. Sorry That just looks like Icon Diarrhea on a purple background.Looks like shit. Search is still better in 7 then 8. I don't have to switch between different categories which are not consistant either.
Looks like a jumbled mess. It's absolutely awful.
Really, where is the Recently Used Documents? How about if I hover over Word in the Old Start menu I also get a recently used documents for that application. Is that there in the new Start menu?
Can I create folders and Categorize everything for simple access?
Your Start Menu looks like one of my customers desktops. Utterly unusable. I can promise you by the time you scroll to the right and find that program you want with the new Start Screen I will already be running the program I want from the old Start menu.
One of the most horrid designs Microsoft has ever came up with. I gave Win 8 a shot for 2 months. Bought it for 15 bucks. Wasted my money.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,470
That looks horrible!
It's like having a smartphone GUI on a 1080p screen, yuck!
If it works for you, I'm glad, but oh boy, that will never touch any of my systems.
But its no different than accessing the folder tree on the old start menu. Clicking on "All Apps" is the same as clicking on "Programs" in the old menu. The Start Menu is an expansion of the "recent programs" part of the old start menu. Its far easier to navigate All Apps that the old tree view of programs. Yes new programs are dumped to the end of the start menu, but its designed so that you can drag them wherever you want very easily.
Firstly, you still have your Taskbar, which like previous versions is still your primary access to your most used programs. It still has the history of recent/frequent on there. You can fit heaps of programs on there still so I don't think that the new start menu not having hover for recent documents is really an issue.
As I have on my Start Menu, you can create shortcuts to folders if you like. You can put whatever shortcuts you like in those folders. You can even create the folders in "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" if you so choose and pin those. I however think that it is much easier to just arrange them on the unlimited space of the Start Menu. How many programs do you have? Surely you can fit them all within a few screens and group them into sections.
Its perfectly usable for me, it takes 2 clicks to run just about everything I want. I don't have to be precise with my mouse movements either like you do when going through the folders of the old start menu. Aside from all that, you still have the taskbar which I still use frequently and I still access programs by typing the first few letters after clicking start.
Also, my start menu is organised so that I don't usually have to scroll right. I just keep the programs that I sometimes use over there, and really its that much of an effort to scroll the mouse wheel 1/16 of a turn but its easy to click through multiple folders? That math doesn't add up.
I love it how you change the subject when a feature is missing and the excuse is you need to organize and customize it. Problem is 99% of people don't like doing that, worse yet most will not know how to do so because Metro requires convoluted gestures to do so.
As for Recent documents, you obviously don't deal with Office Worker Drones where its a VERY used feature.
Also Taskbar has nothing to do with the Start Menu so why bring it into argument.
Just because you have no issue with it and you claim its all good, your opinion doesn't speak for a large chunk of the market that wholesomely disagree with your opinion.
Remember Opinion are just like assholes everyone has one.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1715876891){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 39,027
Agreed.
When will Microsoft learn that a simple top to bottom list of text (like in a menu) is the most efficient way for the human eye and brain to find something quickly.
All the icons and shifted alignments back and forth make for a jumbled mess that takes longer to work with.
First the stupid ribbon interface in Office and now this...
Wrong. People dont mind change when there's a benefit. The problem for Microsoft is the people that did bother to look before they lept - and these people realized Metro serves no benefit for desktop users, there's no increase in usability or functinoality. The apps are web widget garbage and offer less functionality than their browser or standalone x86 app counterparts. It is several steps backward.
The rest of your assumptions are wishful thinking at best. If you can't understand that people are upset Microsoft removed CHOICE, then you're part of the problem to which there is no solution.