Windows 8 shocker

Started May 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,595
Like?
Re: You're making my point
In reply to raminolta, May 12, 2013

raminolta wrote:

I guess we differ in our opinion on Windows 8 being unintuitive. To me, it just has some differences from the previous windows that requires some learning: some people are unhappy with the learning curve and some just don't like the difference. I wouldn't call it less intuitive than previous Windows.

C'mon now.  You can't possibly believe that.

Most Windows users would have trouble even figuring out how to log in for the first time, without using google or similar and/or readkg through reviews, watching video tutorials, etc.

Heck, needing to swipe up and down is so different than other Operating Systems, it's nuts, and needing to do something like that with a desktop UI is even crazier.   The UI developers at Microsoft must have been out of their mind to design a login screen like that for a desktop to begin with.

Even for touch screen devices (as any way you look at it, it's a crazy design for non-touch displays), I can't figure out why in the world MS would have designed it that with vertical swipes, unless it's because of patent issues (where swiping left to right or vice-versa may end up in lawsuits).

That's a good example of why our patent system is very broken; and Microsoft is a large part of that problem, too (heck, from what I understand, they're making a lot of money off of Android devices being sold now, too -- thanks to "strong arm" tactics with threats of lawsuits from their legal staff , where smaller companies are just going to submit to blackmail tactics to avoid the legal fights and pay license fees to Microsoft, since they don't have the resources to fight it)

That's a darn shame that software is in that kind of shape, with fear of  legal issues preventing better products from being introduced.

But, even when users figure out how to login to Win 8, it's far from intuitive to use (and that's being nice about it).

Once you start a new style app, even little things like closing it is not very obvious (an understatement), not to mention the way the new style apps using screen real estate. That's why some reviewers refer to Win 8 as Microsoft Window (singular) versus Microsoft Windows.

When users actually get to the more traditional desktop to run the apps they want to use, even finding a menu system is another hurdle they need to overcome, trying to figure out how to get their mouse in the corners for that purpose, or to the right side to bring up the "charms bar".

Sure, that's intuitive [scarcasm].  IOW, after a lot of trial and error time and/or reading about it in reviews, they may finally figure it out (with a high frustration level and/or  an increasing hatred for the UI design).

Then, when they finally figure out how to get to something resembling an icon for a menu, they're just dumped back into the new style, tile based start screen again.

Sheesh.  I could go on and on about lack of a decent menu heirachy (where you may end up with pages of tiles for larger apps because every little utility or language pack installer is shown, whereas the Win 7 start menu had a subfolder structure so that you could see the main app, and all of the extra programs were in different subfolders in the menu structure.  Yet, Win 8 eliminated that kind of menu structure in the new tile based system.

Heck, an average user is going to have a hard time even figuring out how to shut down Windows 8.

"I wouldn't call it less intuitive than previous Windows."

You've got to be joking.  I've been using computers for a very long time; and Windows 8 has got to have least intuitive user interface I've ever seen.

Talking about bad first impressions... Win 8 is a "poster child" for how not to develop an operating system's user interface.

As per comparison between Linux and Windws 8, I perceive there is a significant difference: first bad impression of Windows on some is because it became somewhat visually different. However, nothing is really broken (at least at the level that is observable to most users), while in Linux distros, one  has to deal with things that are broken and don't work.

That depends on the distro.  As already mentioned in my previous post, if you're using an Ubuntu based distro, it's based on a snapshot of Debian Unstable - not stable (where packages are well tested with bugs already worked), not even testing (where they haven't been tested enough to make sure bugs are fixed to move to stable status yet), but unstable packages (IOW, consider them to be in an Alpha status).

Then, if you use one of the distros using it's base (for example, Mint, as it sounds like you settled on), the potential problems increase even more, since you've got a buggy base to start out with, then try to use third party modifications and menu systems on top of it.

Now, in most cases, that still works OK, provided you perform all of the updates as soon as possible (since they have a large enough user base that most bugs are reported and fixed in a timely manner).   But, if you use a "bleeding edge" distro like that, you can expect to see some bugs   There are pros and cons to any of them.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow