Windows 8 shocker

Started May 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
theswede Veteran Member • Posts: 4,006
Re: If true it's a good step, but Microsoft has other UI problems

I don't use metro applications and I can still use Windows 8, running applications and then closing them by clicking on a button.

Except when a Metro app happens to start. Then you have no visual clue how to close it. You have to slide, or use hot corners, and you have to know how to do this. The OS does not help you.

Isn't that what makes Windows 8 a hybrid OS?

Before Windows 8 there was no concept as "hybrid OS", so what makes Windows 8 one is pretty much whatever it has which "normal" OS'es don't. If the lack of visual cues make a "hybrid OS" they will never take off.

Obviously you haven't used Windows 8 or, you knew there is a desktop there and all desktop applications are run in the desktop environment.

Obviously you haven't had to use Windows 8 or you'd know that when you start a Metro app it takes over and the desktop is not visible, and there is no indication how to get it back.

Lousiest design ever in a mainstream OS.

Aren't there in any OS designed for any interface (touchscreen or desktop). What make you think because there is a gesture that can't be seen, then the OS must be designed for touch screen. By that logic, all OS are designed for  touch screne including all previous windows.

Have fun beating your straw man.

In every operating system whether designed for touch screen or desktop there are certain UI aspects for which there is no visual clue.

Which is a non-sequitur. The point is that core operations, required to do basic tasks, are non-obvious and with no visual cue.

That is unprecedented in a GUI. And it's atrocious.

Click on the start button to get a list of the programs installed on their computer.

Again, obviously you have not used Widnows 8 much since whenever you install a new program, you have the option to have a shortcut in the start menu.

Option. Meaning when I sit down by my colleagues system I have no start button to click to see what software he has installed, and if I have memorized the way to get to the start menu I will still not know what he has installed, only what he happened to select the option to get in that menu.

A complete failure in design.

Otherwise, you right click on the metro screen to bring up all installed applications and choose which one to run or add the the default metro screen.

Completely lacking visual cue. I would never have guessed this, and I am likely to forget it since it's completely unintuitive.

Don't tell me there must be a visual cue for all this. There was no visual cue for any sort of right click in previous windows in any sense and users only learned them from each other or, they just discovered it by themselves.

And there was also no need for any sort of right click to do basic GUI tasks in previous versions of Windows in any sense. This is a design failure, pure and simple.

What makes you think it makes it bad for both.?

Having used it for both.

There are millions of content win8 users. Open your mind and stop the prejudiced opinion that windows 8 does not work for the desktop. Start using it with positive attitude and your negative feelings about it will gradually change.

Open your mind and stop the prejudiced opinion that I did not start from a neutral position about Windows 8 the first time I installed it. I did. And I learned quickly just how horrid it is.

Your prejudice is clouding your judgement something fierce. You seem too emotionally invested to have a rational conversation about Windows 8.

Already answered above. Right click on the metro page and you can bring up and see all installed applications. Don't tell me there is no viual cue to right clicking because you don't know about clicking and right clicking, you couldn't use any previous windows either.

My mother still does not know about right clicking and she has used Windows for over a decade without issues. Now she's switched to Linux, and she still does not know about right clicking.

Your prejudice blinds you to the truth; GUI's have never required right clicking for basic tasks. Only for more complex and administrative tasks. Windows 8 is broken from that aline.

Prophecy of the year. I don't care if MS will win or fail but, I find your prohetic prediction quite amusing.

In 1984 no-one believed IBM would ever be toppled from the top of the computing world. I have a feeling you'd have made the same "amusing" comment about someone predicting its fall then as well.

Lesson taught: big things will fail, don't question that and don't think Windows 8 platform may be just as good as other platforms and IMO, if it fails it is more likely for the reason I mentioned not for your reasoning.


Corporations are not interested in upgrading because if what they have works, upgrading is a pure cost with zero benefit.

An overly generalized statement. By your logic, corporations should have never even switched to computers because it was pure costs.

You are conflating "is" and "ought". Re-read for comprehension and try again.

Does it make sense? They upgrade if they come to believe the benefit is worth the cost and at some point they may belive a fast modern touch screen interface or something else (whatever it is) is more productive than the ancient xp's they have.

Only if they are insane. Literally. Gorilla arm syndrome alone prevents a touch screen interface from being a workable solution for people sitting 8+ hours a day in front of a computer. It's a horrid idea, as has been known since the 1970's.

People who work with computers do not use OS'es. They use applications. If there is a benefit to a touch screen it can be added to XP (and has, for the few cases where it was useful). For the most part the applications are middleware or aggregate systems, highly dependent on underlying libraries and specific versions of display systems (like IE6). Changing to a new OS will require expensive changes in poorly understood systems, and in the end the corporation will have - the exact same functionality they did before the upgrade. Only it has cost them millions. What reason do they have to spend those millions?

Again nobody can be certain which platform will eventually win.

It must be comfy in your bubble where things come to an end, and someone wins. Where computer systems are not used indefinitely but at some point are done, and development just stops.

Unfortunately the rest of the world can't stay in that bubble, but have to live with that there is no "eventually win", but a continuous use of legacy and modern systems in a mix. IBM may have been toppled from the top of the chain, but their mainframes are still chugging along providing data to middleware written from the 1970's to today, which in turn feeds front ends which date from the 1960's to today.

The computing world is not heading for a platform which will eventually win (as if there's a competition going on). It's a huge scrap heap of OS'es and applications built on a multitude of hardwares which all have to work together.

Your comments on market and consumers are tainted by your emotional state and your bubble view on the world. You really ought to get a glimpse into the professional world of computing. It might open your eyes and removes some of the emotional gauze over your eyes.


 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha a7 Sony a5000 +7 more
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 MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow