Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real issue is we like things to remain the same and are resistant to change.
Well,.......Change Is The Future, so rather than fight it, embrace it.
Are you saying we should embrace all change? Why? Just because it's change?
Again, Windows is NOT that difficult.
I can understand embracing the concept of change, the fact that change happens and drives us forward as a species. That I can understand and (to a certain extent) agree with. But if what you're suggesting is that we should embrace every change just for the sake of change, just because "change is the future," I couldn't disagree more. If a certain change doesn't add anything to my life, doesn't make my life better in any way, then why would I embrace it? And if it actually detracts from my life - makes my life worse - then I'm certainly not going to embrace it; I'm going to reject it.
And Windows 8 is a change that makes my life worse, without making it significantly better in any way. I'm a very simple, basic computer user; I want to do word processing, look up information on the internet, send and receive e-mail, and occasionally check out a Youtube video. That's it; that's 95% of my computer usage right there. Most of the things that Win8 is designed to make it easier to do are things I do not want to do, and the tradeoff that I am forced to accept is that by designing it to do those things more easily, they have made it more difficult and more complicated to do the simple things I do want to do.
That is not change for the better; that is change for the worse. And no, I am most assuredly not going to embrace it. You're right - I do want my operating system to remain basically the same, and the reason for that is simple. It already did exactly what I wanted it to do, and did it rather efficiently. So why would I want it to change? I do appreciate today's faster connection speeds, of course, but as far as the operating system, interface, and basic software, every single thing I do on the computer could easily be done with Windows 95, Netscape Navigator, Office 97, and maybe Photoshop 5, if they were still available and supported. They could have stopped right there, and I'd have been happy the rest of my life. There is nothing about Windows 8 that I needed in order to make my computer experience more satisfying or enjoyable.
Is it that much more difficult? In most cases, perhaps not. But every single time I have to perform additional actions in order to complete the same basic task, it is an unnecessary inconvenience. I don't embrace even minor unnecessary inconveniences. And in some cases, yes - it's considerably more difficult to perform some basic tasks in Windows 8, and I certainly don't embrace that.
For those who like Windows 8, good on 'em. I'm happy for them, but for me, it represents nothing but a colossal PIA, because it makes it harder for me to do what I want to do and doesn't offer me anything useful in return. That's where the whole issue begins and ends with me.
I wouldn't say HUGE. More like minor that fixed SOME of the issues.
From my experience, it looks mostly cosmetic. Oh, cool, there's now an icon in the lower left corner that takes me to that damned metro screen. And... uh... then what? I could already do that just by moving the cursor a few millimeters farther into the corner. Still the same crap, just with a slightly more familiar coat of paint.
All the arguments i see here just further my opinion that all could be solved by one simple thing. Choice. If the user wants the metro design, let them have it, if the user wants the classic design, let them have it. If it is too difficult to package into one rolled up OS, sell it as different versions. Windows X Classic, Windows X Metro. Already have 15 different versions of each Windows anyway, why not go the extra step. Bam. Everyone is happy, because they have what works for them. And that is what this all boils down to. Windows 8 work great for you? Awesome. Windows 8 feel like a clunky POS? Don't blame you feel the same way. All solved by a simple choice. Want Metro? Here you go. Want the Start Menu back? Go for it. Is it extra work for Microsoft? Sure, I won't argue that, but if the customer isn't happy, they are going to bail.
After a few days, I'm getting used to Windows 8.1. I don't use the tiles, and my HP has included a software start menu on the desktop. So all is well. Anyway, I read we'll have Windows 9 to complain about in 2015.
I wouldn't say HUGE. More like minor that fixed SOME of the issues.
It tackled the big issues except for one that was too big to resolve that quickly. It took care of the missing start button and the impossible charms navigation issues. The one major issue it didn't fix was the split personality.
There's plenty of minor issues left... but that's true of any new OS. Just take a look at Mavericks.
I can understand embracing the concept of change, the fact that change happens and drives us forward as a species. That I can understand and (to a certain extent) agree with. But if what you're suggesting is that we should embrace every change just for the sake of change, just because "change is the future," I couldn't disagree more. If a certain change doesn't add anything to my life, doesn't make my life better in any way, then why would I embrace it? And if it actually detracts from my life - makes my life worse - then I'm certainly not going to embrace it; I'm going to reject it.
And Windows 8 is a change that makes my life worse, without making it significantly better in any way. I'm a very simple, basic computer user; I want to do word processing, look up information on the internet, send and receive e-mail, and occasionally check out a Youtube video. That's it; that's 95% of my computer usage right there. Most of the things that Win8 is designed to make it easier to do are things I do not want to do, and the tradeoff that I am forced to accept is that by designing it to do those things more easily, they have made it more difficult and more complicated to do the simple things I do want to do.
That is not change for the better; that is change for the worse. And no, I am most assuredly not going to embrace it. You're right - I do want my operating system to remain basically the same, and the reason for that is simple. It already did exactly what I wanted it to do, and did it rather efficiently. So why would I want it to change? I do appreciate today's faster connection speeds, of course, but as far as the operating system, interface, and basic software, every single thing I do on the computer could easily be done with Windows 95, Netscape Navigator, Office 97, and maybe Photoshop 5, if they were still available and supported. They could have stopped right there, and I'd have been happy the rest of my life. There is nothing about Windows 8 that I needed in order to make my computer experience more satisfying or enjoyable.
Is it that much more difficult? In most cases, perhaps not. But every single time I have to perform additional actions in order to complete the same basic task, it is an unnecessary inconvenience. I don't embrace even minor unnecessary inconveniences. And in some cases, yes - it's considerably more difficult to perform some basic tasks in Windows 8, and I certainly don't embrace that.
For those who like Windows 8, good on 'em. I'm happy for them, but for me, it represents nothing but a colossal PIA, because it makes it harder for me to do what I want to do and doesn't offer me anything useful in return. That's where the whole issue begins and ends with me.
Have you tried Windows 8.1? They've made it a lot easier to do basic things like shut down your computer.
From my experience, it looks mostly cosmetic. Oh, cool, there's now an icon in the lower left corner that takes me to that damned metro screen. And... uh... then what? I could already do that just by moving the cursor a few millimeters farther into the corner. Still the same crap, just with a slightly more familiar coat of paint.
The start button is a design pattern that goes back to Windows 95. When you turned on your computer, you would typically go directly to the start button to get started. By removing the start button, they had made Windows 8 less intuitive by removing a design pattern without replacing it with anything else.
Windows 8.1 remedied that. When you boot your computer, you can now hit start to get started. From an interaction perspective, it's a huge improvement.
All the arguments i see here just further my opinion that all could be solved by one simple thing. Choice. If the user wants the metro design, let them have it, if the user wants the classic design, let them have it. If it is too difficult to package into one rolled up OS, sell it as different versions. Windows X Classic, Windows X Metro. Already have 15 different versions of each Windows anyway, why not go the extra step. Bam. Everyone is happy, because they have what works for them. And that is what this all boils down to. Windows 8 work great for you? Awesome. Windows 8 feel like a clunky POS? Don't blame you feel the same way. All solved by a simple choice. Want Metro? Here you go. Want the Start Menu back? Go for it. Is it extra work for Microsoft? Sure, I won't argue that, but if the customer isn't happy, they are going to bail.
I think your solution actually makes the problem worse. Having two interfaces in one application is a horrible design practice. Microsoft should not have done it in the first place. Giving users a choice between two interfaces, as you suggest, is one of the worst interaction patterns in the industry. The right solution is to have one good design that meets everyone's needs. Microsoft clearly did not achieve that.
Alan Cooper does a good job at covering why two interfaces is a bad idea in About Face.
All the arguments i see here just further my opinion that all could be solved by one simple thing. Choice. If the user wants the metro design, let them have it, if the user wants the classic design, let them have it. If it is too difficult to package into one rolled up OS, sell it as different versions. Windows X Classic, Windows X Metro. Already have 15 different versions of each Windows anyway, why not go the extra step. Bam. Everyone is happy, because they have what works for them. And that is what this all boils down to. Windows 8 work great for you? Awesome. Windows 8 feel like a clunky POS? Don't blame you feel the same way. All solved by a simple choice. Want Metro? Here you go. Want the Start Menu back? Go for it. Is it extra work for Microsoft? Sure, I won't argue that, but if the customer isn't happy, they are going to bail.
If Classic Shell, Start8, and other third party software can get rid of Metro, Charms, and restore the Start menu to the way it was on Windows 7, why can't MS do the same?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
