Windows 8's interface

Currently running Windows 8 on my machine. I can see myself skipping over the new "start menu" entirely. The apps look nice, but from my experience they are incredibly slow to load, and lack the functionality to make them worthwhile. The ability to snap apps to one side of the screen is nifty, but from the looks of it the Metro apps can only be run on the primary monitor if you've got a dual-monitor setup. I haven't yet found a way to get the metro interface to open anything on a secondary monitor.

Considering the whole mantra behind this is that "anyone can do it", but with that in mind it's hard to believe how cumbersome some things can be. There are many functions that are completely hidden from view and only appear if you hover your mouse over certain corners of the screen. For instance, a little side menu will pop up only if you hover your mouse over the very top/bottom right area of the screen for a couple of seconds. (See HERE). As far as I've seen, accessing that menu is the only way to change settings in any of the Metro apps, and I spent a good amount of time staring at the built-in e-mail app trying to figure out where the fucking button to add a new account was, until I happened upon that menu.

So is there at least a manual page, or do you have to hover your mouse in strange places, hoping to find whatever function you need to use that day? Cause that would be pretty fun... I'm getting visions of Win8 users sending each other "hints" and "cheat codes" about stuff they managed to find out, like some kind of graphical adventure game. Except it's not so much fun when the boss keeps asking why you haven't printed those TPS reports yet ("I can't print yet sir, the ogre champion is guarding the queue. Have to grind a bit more before I can hope to take him on!")

Hey remember "mouse gestures"? I guess those really only got used in web browsers though? I had a great idea for desktop systems: do away with the mouse entirely and just use plain old hand gestures (picked up via the webcam - every laptop has one these days, and if your machine doesn't, the nice DHS guys will be glad to hook you up). Then the OS can figure out how well it's serving your needs based on context. Like, it's all good while you're doing all the regular funky hand signals and app-gang signs, but if you start slipping and flip the bird, then it knows shit's not right. Quick, time to revert back a few steps, restore those deleted buffers before the luser starts punching the screen...

But Microsoft has really lost their edge. They used to make all this cool technology... OS with built-in artificial intelligence and virtual reality. Sure, maybe they had codenames like "Clippy" or "Microsoft Bob", but it was avant-garde stuff! Now they can't even afford to pay an indian programmer to paint some regular old menubars on the screen.

hex11 said:

Hey remember "mouse gestures"?

Only because I hate them and wish they would die. When Microsoft takes away my buttons to click on and text fields to type commands into, only one gesture comes to mind.

There's a lot of hate about the ribbon here but I personally learned the 2003 menu/toolbar interface, and ribbons made it a lot easier for me to figure out how to do what I wanted to do because nothing was hidden away in a menu with walls of text. I understand the extra screen real estate it uses is a burden to those familiar with the old interface, but the ribbons make things easier to figure out and remember without having to constantly refer to a help program.

I freaking hate the ribbon. Having been used to the old interface since 1995, I literally *cannot* find half of the features I used in that gigantic mess. To top that off, I also find myself spending about five times as long to do something thanks to the ribbon.

I hate it. I hate hate hate hate hate it.

And I wouldn't have a problem with it if they still had an option for you to switch back. D:<

They should have stuck to a more Win2000-ish look.No fancy stuff,it's simple and efficient.You get your work done.

yukib1t said:

Just sayin'...

ha ha, that could be their secret deliberate sales tactic. Oh, gee wiz, what a coincidence that we sold TWO operating systems instead of one because the previous one 'accidently' sucked?

Also, more FUD (or IS it??? dunn dunn dunnnnnnn) regarding the smartphone design:
http://weev.livejournal.com/402016.html

That's some pure, uncut Columbian nutjobbery right there.

Heh, so just like there are underground communities of people preferring tube sound, analog tape, vinyl etc. now there will be people preferring "traditional, classic, more functional and efficient" interfaces and software? :-p

What do you mean will? Those people already exist in several forms depending on which platform they consider to be the optimal combination of traditional and efficient.

Yes, but I don't simply refer to using new systems that resemble older software in some way (e.g. like using the CUI shell in an otherwise ultra-modern 3.x linux kernel distro, or using minimal X server interfaces like hex11 does), I mean using real "status quo antem" softwar, even if this means being locked in older hardware, something that is much less desirable/feasible.

Of course, since computers are used for tasks more diverse than doing a single job like e.g. playing back a reel of tape, doing serious work with older hardware/software becomes problematic at some point, though there are exceptions: technically, Windows XP is a dinosaur in IT terms (11 years old) yet it still carries significant weight, and gets the job done. The only real way to kill it and render continued usage obsolete would be if the traditional Wintel platform was killed too (perhaps that's what's really behind that dual Intel/ARM approach?)

Where's Windows 2000 in yukib1t's pic? And are they calling Windows 1 good?

Sodaholic said:

Where's Windows 2000 in yukib1t's pic? And are they calling Windows 1 good?

Windows 2000 = proto-Windows XP or Windows XP lite, depending on who you ask. Also, the only one to have a "server" version with the same name. It was really an oddball case, not really fitting in that pic.

Windows 1 & 2 were too rough-cut to even compete in the same league with 3 or even any of the contemporary GUIs on other platforms. Even GEM and early Mac OS smoked them. I'd lump them together as "bad" and put DOS before them as "good" ;-)

I'm sorry, but I can't look at the metro interface and NOT see this:






It's actually a bit insulting.

yukib1t said:

>image snip<
Just sayin'...

Despite the ballsy Vista startup time, I prefer it over XP and 7 :)

Sodaholic said:

Where's Windows 2000 in yukib1t's pic? And are they calling Windows 1 good?

According to Wikipedia, Windows 2000 is simply Windows Millenium, professional edition (Millenium being for home).

I see myself using XP until it's no longer supported, or there's some game I want to play that irrevocably demands an OS update.

Not that I'm bashing Win7. Seems stable enough. I've just got no reason to use it.

printz said:

According to Wikipedia, Windows 2000 is simply Windows Millenium, professional edition (Millenium being for home).

Must have stumbled upon a joke edit or they are citing an improper use of the term "millennium".

Windows 2000 uses a Windows NT kernel, cuts off ties with 16-bit MS-DOS definitively (while the "real" Millenium simply masked it) and in fact is much closer to Windows XP than it is to the 9x/Me series.

So much closer in fact that certain device drivers are shared with Windows XP, while it can't use VXD-style drivers at all. So technically they are two very different products, much more different than e.g. XP and Server 2003 or Vista/7 and Server 2008.

Windows 2000 is NT4 SP 7. Windows ME is Windows 98 with everything that was good about Windows 98 fucked up.

C'mon Microsoft, stop pretending that you are releasing gradual enhancements to Windows and go straight to the real, final goal:

Quasar said:

Windows 2000 is NT4 SP 7. Windows ME is Windows 98 with everything that was good about Windows 98 fucked up.

I've heard that you can dump certain files from 98 into an ME install and it actually becomes superior to 98. Can't remember what files or how so anymore, though. Never had ME; jumped from 98 right to XP.

On the Good/Shit graph, I think most would favor 2000 for Good over XP. XP was definitely considered Shit at release; 2000 with a PlaySkool UI. It was a damn good OS in hindsight, but I know it was ridiculed almost as much as Vista at launch.

Edit: Rereading this post it sounds like I'm praising 2000, which was never my intention. I only used it a handful of times. I just know that back when XP came out, it was treated like a dumbed down 2000 more often than not.

Maes said:

Windows 2000 = proto-Windows XP or Windows XP lite, depending on who you ask. Also, the only one to have a "server" version with the same name. It was really an oddball case, not really fitting in that pic.

What really made Windows XP awesome for me was its very specific desktop theme with rounded title bars and blue buttons. It was like a mark of quality.

printz said:

What really made Windows XP awesome for me was its very specific desktop theme with rounded title bars and blue buttons. It was like a mark of quality.

That was the first thing I turned off whenever I was using XP. It annoyed the hell out of me.

Maes said:

C'mon Microsoft, stop pretending that you are releasing gradual enhancements to Windows and go straight to the real, final goal:

stop quoting images dumbass

I'm pretty sure that dog is the 'search companion' who is animated to read a book BACKWARDS, yes he flips the pages backwards when reading. No wonder he can't find anything.

gggmork said:

I'm pretty sure that dog is the 'search companion' who is animated to read a book BACKWARDS, yes he flips the pages backwards when reading. No wonder he can't find anything.

Indeed. He was lifted straight from Bob for the occasion.

The thing about XP that bothered me the most was the never-ending popup notifications. That got old real quick. I don't remember so much in-your face distractions in Win2000 or earlier. At work I ended up switching to one of those "alternate desktop shells" just to avoid those (when I had to use Windows for whatever reason).

printz said:

What really made Windows XP awesome for me was its very specific desktop theme with rounded title bars and blue buttons. It was like a mark of quality.

Quite possibly Windows XP's most criticized feature... I certainly turned that junk theme off myself.

I declare this to be Windows 8's official theme song.

chungy said:

Quite possibly Windows XP's most criticized feature... I certainly turned that junk theme off myself.

That "theme" was actually customizeable at one point, then it was hardcoded. That made it obnoxious!

XP's theme was ugly as shit. While I still prefer the classic look, I still think that Vista/7's theme was a definite improvement over XP's.