:facedesk: You clearly have never worked in I.T. - a third party hack to restore basic functionality that should exist out of the box is a no-go in business/enterprise, because for one thing Microsoft could break it at a moment's notice, and MS support would have every right to say "sorry, its not supported". First party support is crucial in this area.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 8.1 Update Tries To Win Back Desktop Diehards
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
:facedesk: You clearly have never worked in I.T. - a third party hack to restore basic functionality that should exist out of the box is a no-go in business/enterprise, because for one thing Microsoft could break it at a moment's notice, and MS support would have every right to say "sorry, its not supported". First party support is crucial in this area.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
This is just another reason never to use MS in a professional environment. It is just simply not a trustworthy company which favours it own agenda rather then customers needs.
That might be going a little overboard. When it comes to enterprise stuff their support is top notch. And a lot of us have built careers off of experience using their enterprise software (Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc). The issue is that before companies will commit to pinning their day to day operation on something, it has to be first party officially supported - meaning MS. So that there's accountability and so there's support available if something goes wrong and the burden is on MS to fix it.
They made a tactical blunder by over-extending in the hope that everyone would be okay with a touch UI replacing what was working for everyone before, and purposefully removing the ability to revert to classic UI elements like they always supported in prior versions of Windows. "Our way or the high way" wasn't a very good tactic in retrospect and it'll take another iteration or two before they pull their heads out.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Like I said before the irrational hate makes no sense. One program that's tiny alleviates all the problems people endlessly complain about. All these people that replace every stock windows app yet for some reason the thought that installing a start replacement is somehow wrong? Is not Apple you can install things to change the os. But some just want something to bitch about.
See, here is legitimate concern (even if it's one I don't agree with in all circumstances) but you have to preface with some snarky, condescending bullshit. This is my beef with pcjunkie...not that you have complaints about Windows 8, but the way they are expressed.
I agree with the sentiment that rolling out something like Classic Shell across the board to thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of users would be a bad idea for the reason you state. You're one Windows update from the possibility of everyone's PC being crippled by a now broken third party band-aid.
Despite that, I have a few SMBs for which I regularly provide support. I show up onsite for my scheduled maintenance and find them in a panic because, without any input from me, they have purchased a new PC from Staples or Best Buy with Windows 8. Users are baffled, and because of all the anti-Windows 8 chatter they have heard they won't even TRY to find their way around. Early on before I personally adopted Windows 8, I installed Classic Shell which put the user back in somewhat familiar territory. I knew, based on this user's needs that if CS blew up, I could very easily wipe the PC and reload it.
Now, though, after having used 8 for a year or so, I just train them. It seems like the light really goes on for people when you explain the start screen as just a full screen start menu that is customizable. Show them how easy it is to toggle between start screen and desktop. Show them how to find their apps. Good to go. Most people are using a browser, email, and a few LOB apps. Once these are open, it's easy to do one's job regardless of which OS. Engineers and so forth who tend to be more computer savvy and willing to try things without fear of blowing up their PC have an easier time with it. I stand by my statement that it doesn't take long to help a user achieve a level of proficiency required to function with Windows 8. Here are the shortcuts for the apps you use every day. Go.
So to say "you have obviously never worked in IT" because one has altered the UI of Windows 8 with something like Classic Shell is ridiculous. It smacks of this silly ivory tower mentality that many IT people share. They've been told repeatedly how smart they are and are heaped with praise because they are proficient with computers. Frankly, most of what we do you could train a monkey to do. Providing good customer service and being able to relate to people in a way that makes them comfortable is a much more difficult skill to acquire. Judging by the angry comments I see by those who dislike Windows 8, it makes me wonder about the quality of service you are able to provide the users you support.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a weekend admin who has obviously never worked in IT.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
They typically have several third party programs used for work baked into their images anyway, what is one more if it reduces training costs? If they work it in, in validation?
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
I have dealt with you guys plenty b4 I left to slumlord fulltime. I asked to install some printer, or Logitech cordless mouse drivers, or a business card scanner, (items left behind during the IT whirlwind after a buyout), and they did it. This was at a major company with 1200 locations in the US, Can, and Rus. You call it a hack, others call it a repair. It's just another piece of software. You make it sound like MS software is the only software used in the corporate environment.
I still wouldn't install something like that in an enterprise environment unless I could be certain Microsoft wouldn't (inadvertently or otherwise) break it. You would have carefully test Windows updates in a lab setting to be sure they're not going to wreck your workstations. Can you image getting a call after WSUS pushed out a bunch of updates that everyone's PC was unusable.
Like I said in my earlier wall of text, I have three or four users where I installed Classic Shell in a production environment. These are SMBs where I know that I can get a user back online pretty quickly if CS blows up.
What does concern me is that I inherited a client last year with two 2012 Hyper-V hosts (on which they're running four critical VMs) that were installed with Classic Shell. Ugh. I really need to get that off of there but scheduling a maintenance window to bring everything down has been a challenge. I've never uninstalled Classic Shell...not sure how clean a procedure that is or if there is any possibility of damaging 2012.
I get what you're saying but I would not equate something like Classic Shell or Start8 to a (hopefully) WHQL certified driver or application.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
If MS really wanted to try and win back fans, why not give the option for a desktop/laptop only(no metro, old style, etc), or the hybrid.
It would be much easier for a business with lots of people to roll out a familiar OS.
Or does this just make too much sense?
It would be much easier for a business with lots of people to roll out a familiar OS.
Or does this just make too much sense?
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
If MS really wanted to try and win back fans, why not give the option for a desktop/laptop only(no metro, old style, etc), or the hybrid.
It would be much easier for a business with lots of people to roll out a familiar OS.
Or does this just make too much sense?
It makes perfect sense from a consumers point of view, just not from MS's pov.
They believe Metro on the desktop will make it more likely people will move to Win8 Metro on the tablets and phones, and abandon Android/IOS. Or maybe they believe it will just push people away from the PC to, (hopefully), Win8 Metro tablets/phones.
No baked in choice is about the app store, and Metro phones/tablets imho.
They see the IOS and Android App stores, and want a piece of that ta$ty pie. I get that, and even respect that. This is just how they have decided to go about it. Is it or will it work? We will see in a few years. I have way too many paid apps that would just disappear if I left Android, so unless Android really starts to suck compared to mobile Metro, I am not going to switch.
What are your qualifications again? Try thinking more than one or two people at a time when training will you. If you have the time for one on one training your wasting company time. Of course I act professional in my job but one of my duties is to test and recommend products and when it comes to the OS upgrades that is part of it. I was just as adamant to upper management as here but in a more professional capacity. Now I get some weekend admin calling me a hater and to suck it up...fortunately I don't have to in my position. Please continue with the lovefest.
PornoSatan
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,493
The funny part being that there was a much better chance they could have won the mobile market if they introduced Windows 8 with both the metro start menu and a traditional start menu. They could have defaulted everyone to the metro start menu and had a configuration option to change it back to the traditional menu, that way everyone could tinker with the metro menu on their own time and not be forced into it. Businesses would adopt Windows 8 much more readily, and adoption would increase much more readily. Then when they released their mobile devices people would be like "Oh, I remember this, it's the metro start menu I can change to in Windows 8 if I want". Instead MS forced the issue and now people are associating the metro menu with negativity.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
While agree with much of what you're saying here, there is even more to it and that is hybrid aspect to 8. Even the cheapest and slowest Windows 8 tablets can effectively run many desktop applications. Of course most desktop apps aren't designed to work with touch, but there are some out there and there's nothing to stop a developer from making a touch capable desktop today. I constantly use desktop OneNote on my Dell Venue 8 Pro. It's a desktop app but it's still probably the best note taking device with pen support there is on a tablet, even when compared to iOS and Android.
As the hybrid design of Windows, the hardware gets better, particularly on lower end of the price spectrum, and as pricing improves and that's an area where Windows tablets and hybrids have come a long way in recent months, I think Microsoft will have a very competitive and interesting platform and devices. Even now these 8" Windows 8 tablets have stirred the pot. These devices seem to be doing very well and overall have received solid reviews, the best that any Windows tablets I can recall, even including the Surface lines.
It becomes a simple matter of bang for the buck. One devices that serves multiple purposes for no more than the cost of an iOS and Android tablet. Long term, I don't see how that can't gain some serious traction. I'm not saying that Windows tablets will dominate in sales, but the 2-in-1 idea does have appeal and could with a lot of businesses as they more and more begin to adopt tablets where Windows devices do have advantages.
But as you say, time will tell. And we'll know if and when the idea of the hybrid has arrived if say Apple ever decides to go in that direction. There have been a number of rumors that they are working on their own hybrid products. Right now we have several touch capable Chromebooks and even Android touch capable desktops are available. So while the hybrid design might eventually fail, others do seem be looking over their shoulder just in case the idea does catch on. This is a business where never sometimes does come around.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I'm not sure how the Start Menu, which overall has never been perceived as touch friendly, would have had much impact on mobile devices. Indeed two completely Start methods I think would have just added more confusion and complexity. What needed to happen and hopefully with Windows 9 are configuration option for the Start Screen to behave like the Start Menu without being the Start Menu.
Sure business adoption could have been better I'm sure if the overall perception of 8 were better especially as it relates to traditional desktop use but the numbers were never going to come anywhere close to 7. Windows upgrades are very cyclical and aren't generally driven by a new version of Windows. Indeed 7's adoption was driven by the long span between XP to 7 given Vista's unappealing nature. 9 will probably see better adoption as 7 begins to age out, but I would suspect that there won't be another business big bang upgrade cycle until Windows 10 comes out, at which point 7 will be 9 years old or so.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Good job pcjunkie! You made Eradan cry!
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
I'll just wait for Windows 9. Hopefully it wont have the Metro GUI.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
"The hybrid nature of Win8" LOL. How does not removing the original start menu from the early betas, and having the OS default to the Metro UI/apps when it detects a touch screen, and the original UI/programs when it does not, (or simply allowing the choice between them regardless), harm this "hybrid nature"? It simply does not.
It does however get in the way of attempting to use the desktop market to get a foot in the door of the phone/tablet markets, and to get themselves set up with a nice juicy revenue gerating app store. Hybrid nature my ass. Again, if that is what they think will do it for them, and their stock holders then great. Honestly, it was a waste of time imho. A $200 range Metro tablet the day they launched would have got them into the tablet market faster than pushing the Metro UI over onto desktops. Getting established in the tablet market would have naturally opened doors to the phone market.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I've never argued against some type of Start Menu, my point is that it's mostly an issue of familiarity, not some masterful piece of functionality that makes it inherently better for desktop use than the Start Screen. I think that whatever becomes the Start Menu in 9 should be configuration options of the Start Screen with some type of mini-Start Screen view. And this update does set app defaults based on input types. Open a photo, video or audio file and the old desktop apps open on a device with a mouse and keyboard, even if touch is available like a convertible laptop.
One big selling point of these cheap Windows 8 tablets is that they can run desktop apps. One of the big complains of Windows RT tablets like the Surface is that that don't run desktop apps. There does seem to be a market for these kinds of devices, how well it will end up, who knows exactly right now. But there's got so be a decent market for $200 devices like the Dell Venue 8 Pro, especially as Windows improves along with the hardware.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
The Start menu is not about "searching" for stuff.
The Start menu is about ORGANIZATION.
You find it ONCE, then bind it to the Start menu so you simply click and launch.
It's also far more space efficient than the Start screen and doesn't break context.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Great. One user.
Now think about the time you spent, multiplied by 100 users.
Now think about the time you spent multiplied by 10,000 users. Not all of whom are exactly bright or computer literate. Some of who are lucky they remember their own names from day to day.
You can fluff off training, but it's a very real, time and money consuming cost.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,691
That breaking context is what is most jarring. It takes a while to get used to it, and even then when you jump out of the app you were working on to launch something else and have to pop back, you can take a few to get back to what you were doing. Yes, I realize that you do the same with the old Start Menu, but at least the application and Windows chrome is still there. This is something I hope they address in the next release of Windows.
Exactly. Those one off or two user things aren't very typical. Especially with some of the older guys in charge of everything. They know how to use a computer to get their work done. They don't want or need to learn a new UI and things (asking every 10 minutes where something is or how to do something). Other users will be completely fine and will learn it. However, even if 10% of users had issues (we found it was a lot more during pilot testing), that can be a LOT of people. I guess if you have a huge IT department, it might make sense to get some training going. But, for us smaller IT dept's, it's not going to happen. Not yet, anyway.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
The Start Screen/App Screen is as organized as the Start Menu. The Start Screen is a collection tiles which are combination of shortcuts and notifications. For the standpoint of shortcuts the Start Screen is more capable than the Start Menu which allows for a very limited number of user shortcuts. The Apps Screen while not hierarchical allows for installed apps to be viewed 4 different was and does group top level folder hierarchies.
Of course there is the issue of full screen and I can agree that it can be "jarring" at first but the point of the Start Menu/Start Screen is typically to go somewhere else from where you are, either launching an new app or finding something and that by nature is "breaking context". Again, I have no issues with something like the Start Menu being there, I'm just saying that I don't think the Start Menu is inherently better as an app launcher or even better organized, though I understand that the idea of folders is an issue for some.
This reminds me of Firefox's UI changes awhile back where they got rid of the "menu" tool bar by default. You got a cute little orange bar to click on and expand menus. Its not really faster, in fact for me its generally slower to get to the controls I want but it does look nicer and use less screen space.... the size of a mouse cursor. I use that design on my laptop just for kicks but on my desktop... I'm old school. Its far faster. But hey, full screen web browsing for all and constant switches between apps is the future baby.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
And it also breaks context completely. While the Start menu may OBSCURE a portion of a window, it doesn't completely remove it from view.
You keep using "at first".
In a large enterprise employment that can be THOUSANDS of "at firsts". And the support time to hand-hold people is VERY expensive. And some of them will continually agitate for the return of their familiar desktop paradigm.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
Bingo. And this is exactly why the overall Win8 adoption rate is dismal, at best.
Enterprise customers, as a collective, is the largest Windows user base and license purchaser by volume on the planet.
In turn, they are also the largest revenue source for Microsoft.
In summary, Microsoft fucked up royally by not applying even an inkling of logic to cater to their largest customer base when Win8 was initially released without including a boot to desktop default option nor a full Start Menu in order to allow these customers to maintain a fluid business computing infrastructure resultant from migrating to a post-Win7 OS, when that time comes.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I understand that. My point is why does it matter that there's a full screen launcher if one going to launch another application that wasn't on the screen before going into the Start Menu or Start Screen.
And I get this too. Many try to frame these UIs changes in very narrow and absolute terms and there's back and forth about either how difficult it is to adapt to these UI or how simple it is. Like most things in life, the truth if generally in the middle.
Again, I'm not opposed to something like the Start Menu if for nothing other than legacy familiarity, I just don't think the Start Screen is that difficult to adapt to as an app launcher. But ANY change is more than many are willing to deal with.
GP40X
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 176
Another issue with Windows 8 is "NO XP MODE". There are a lot of companies/corporations out there that have proprietary business software that just flat won't run on 7, never mind Windows 8/8.1. Windows 7 at least still has XP mode. The corporation I work for is still using XP and we are just now migrating over to Windows 7 in force. The software we use is proprietary and would have to be completely rewritten to run on 8. Think about the major outlay to write or rewrite software to run on Windows 8. So not only do you have the cost of upgrading/replacing hardware, the cost of multi-seat licenses for Windows 8 (think 15,000 seats) a steep learning curve to get all of your employees up to speed on 8 (again training 15K employees) but you have to spend additional millions in some cases to write new secure software for your business (think banking, insurance, and security firms to name a few). Why would a company want to spend multimillions to replace something that already works and train thousands to use it unless they absolutely have to.
"iPad tunnelvision" is the term for their bullheaded craze to make headway in the mobile segment by forcing a tablet UI on desktops.
Books will be written about this time, it will be case studied in business courses, it will be Ballmer's legacy and its not even done yet - no telling how deep this thing is going to bore.