Windows 8 'bad' for desktop users - Gartner's one-word review Analyst firm Gartner has chosen just one word to describe Windows 8 for desktop users: “Bad”. Research Director Gunnar Berger put the imminent OS through its paces in a five-part review which found that Windows 8 is pretty good when used on touch-screen devices. Microsoft loaned Berger a Samsung slate device and he found that …
Ah but it's Gartner saying it, so all the IT departments who have been saying this will now be believed.
Or more likely the company director can now use this to come up with the brilliant new idea of his/hers that Windows 8 will be avoided.
Or if the company is run like the one Clark Griswald works for in Christmas Vacation then the boss will see the words "Gartner" and "Windows 8" on the report cover and hit the button marked "Full speed ahead"...
Microsoft's new Bob doesn't work to well on Desktops. Didn't we all know this already?
You can't take a UI that is poor even on a phone and expect it to be any better on a 24in desktop monitor.
Windows 8 is going to sink Microsoft. They have failed in the mobile market, and the Metro Virus has now infected desktops too.
MS won't sink due to Windows8, Windows 7 is still very pleasant to use and does pretty much what most desktop users want.
Windows 8 will just be another abandoned child like Vista was, it's good to see Microsoft can still kick out an absolute stinker even with their past 'experience'
I've yet to have anyone actually demonstrate to me how Metro makes things harder on the Desktop than Windows 7. I hit the Windows key and type vm and up comes VMware. I hit it and type wo and up comes word. If I want word pad, then it's the next one down. I use about twenty programs regularly on my Desktop Windows (I am a power user) and that number of programs fits comfortably on my laptop screen Metro page, let alone my desktop monitor! A handful of things I have found to take longer such as turning on a VPN (two extra clicks), but these are my actual metrics, not opinions. So how is it actually hindering me doing anything?
It's not just that.
having two "desktops" is painful. Just as an example I thought I'd try out the Finance "metro app" so that involved me copying and pasting some old ticker symbols from a spreadsheet type thing. I can't readily alt-tab between Metro apps and Desktop Apps, so witness much mouse furtling, (going "start" then "desktop"). Just like you are trying to say there is no need for - note this was on a one-screen laptop. More than one screen gives its own issues.
As mentioned in the article - try using a virtual machine or a remote connection for this stuff, the Windows key opens the wrong bloody start menu.
Having two IE versions (double up for 64-bit) is tricksy too. Download a file in Metro, flip to Desktop to find the file (via start, wtf? why can't I just minimise it?) and, I'd lost the file. Without thinking, and because there's an "e" on the taskbar, I hit that. new IE opens, unrelated to Metro one. Now I feel lost and confused.
Today I have had cricinfo open in an IE window on my 7 machine. As I work I can see the depressing score rendered from the title bar of the window in the little taskbar thing whilst all my real work is full screen across a couple of monitors. In 8, not a hope. it shows a little square "e". So to check the score I have to go to IE in full, not just a glimpse down (I am sure there are work related similar things like this).
Why do all the Metro apps use so much screen real estate to the left, and all the info crammed off-screen to the right, and it won't even show on a monitor to the right. So I have to scroll to see the content. Cool and easy on a phone, but a nightmare with a keyboard (remember, I am meant to use keys, like you said). It's not productive.
Office 13 has serious interface issues too, making everything white is harder to see what the content is because the interface SCREAMS at me. Stupid animations (see Thurrott on Word) are annoying. Icons are too big and too intrusive. it's desinged for fingers the size of badly bruised cumberland sausage, not a mouse pointer.
Outlook, the "premier" mail/calendar application cannot show unopened messages waiting in metro, which seems to be because it's not a "Metro" application. No, i have to use the mail app connected to exchange to do that. So more duplication, and I am meant to pay for an application that lacks the functionality of the free one? The reason - Metro. It's a different place, and designed for touch.
To shut down I could spend some time on Google to find out how to add a button to the desktop, or I could reset the popwer switch to "shut down" (still can't have it set to restart AND to shutdown though, as there is one button there), or I could find one pixel on the right, (which is bloody difficult with another monitor to the right) to find a charm to click on a link to find shutdown/restart. Everything takes more clicks and more head scratching.
7 start menu has a cool feature of hovering over an application shows the recent documents. I use it all the time. It remembers my recent applications too. During a month I use different ones, so it changes. In 8 I have to pin to them to the taskbar. In 7 it just happened. More time faffing around, eating up taskbar real estate. (I do like the way the recent documents pop up on the pinned applications, but why do I need to do that?)
I can handle the flat, bland look of it. I can handle the idea of removing the start menu, I can even handle idea of Metro. I just feel that as a desktop user I've been put to the back of the useabilty queue as Microsoft chases some mobile dream.
Unless, of course, Balmer wants to give me a free 1440 line touch monitor with my Win8 licence.
Oh, I feel better for getting that off my chest.
See that's how criticism of WIn8 should be done - valid concerns with reasons. Not desparate flailing for anything that makes the OS sound bad even when the facts have to be distorted to fit.
There are obvious shortcomings in a number of the Metro apps, don't disagree.( At least in the beta. I'll reserve full judgement till I see the final versions.) I think a lot of these will be fixed early-ish on. For the most part, I will be using Win8 just like I use Win7 with the same software as before running on the Desktop. Metro will just be a start menu for me for some time to come. But yeah, nothing's perfect and I ain't going to argue against your points (pretty certain you'll be able to change colour schemes in Office 2013 release version if that helps). I just get annoyed when people come out with factually incorrect stuff that is easily disproved or close their minds to things that are actually better out of bias. Your post doesn't read like that so get an upvote from me!
You're prob a tech. 95% of the UK are not and are quite happily fit into the public joe arena. Most of these people would scream if they saw no more Windows "start" menu. To just attack a users expectant frame of mind of how to use a Windows PC rather than slowly transitioning to a new UI is ridiculous.
In comparison, Apple introduced the launch pad on Lion. I hardly use, but I know it's there and could a new way to launch apps in the future. However, I'm still happy to sit icons along the bottom and let them disappear like magic as a desktop UI should be. None of this finger to LCD screen non-sense that M$ hopes people will do with Metro.
Watch out for Windows 8.5 to be announcement in Jan 2013.
"You're prob a tech. 95% of the UK are not and are quite happily fit into the public joe arena. Most of these people would scream if they saw no more Windows "start" menu."
I am a "tech". I'm an old C / C++ programmer now an engineering manager. But I honestly cannot see moving to the bottom left and clicking if there's a circle there and moving to the bottom left and clicking if there isn't, as a big difference. And I think we can expect MS to do some sort of "Welcome to Windows 8" video for new users to the system. Windows 8 will be pretty easy for new users. Half the complaints here are from people who think it's being 'dumbed down' after all. It is a certain sub-section of the IT profession that will get upset about this.
Most users will shrug, click on the bottom left and carry on. I think they'll even prefer big friendly images to looking through a menu that contains everything that is installed on their computer.
"But I honestly cannot see moving to the bottom left and clicking if there's a circle there and moving to the bottom left and clicking if there isn't"
So you don't see the problem with a UI that has hidden various key functions in the very corners of the display under the assumption that you can thumbswipe that location to get them to show up being forced upon non-touch-enabled systems?
Microsoft already have a chaotically silly way of organising their configuration utilities, the last thing we bloody need is for them to start hiding the $%^&ing menus themselves. Bad enough to be wondering which bit of the Control Panel you need to get to this time to eg disable 802.1x, but even worse if you also have to remember how to open the bloody control panel 'cos the stupid goits went and hid all the bloody menus...
"So you don't see the problem with a UI that has hidden various key functions in the very corners of the display under the assumption that you can thumbswipe that location to get them to show up being forced upon non-touch-enabled systems?"
That's a funny way to re-phrase it's exactly the same but without a visible start button. Which is what I wrote. And no, as you just quoted me saying: I don't see the problem.
"Bad enough to be wondering which bit of the Control Panel you need to get to this time to eg disable 802.1x"
Any company that designed it's O/S around making the enablement or disablement of Firewire prominently displayed, would not be a commercial success I am thinking. But you're right. I wish it were as easy as just editing /etc/modprobe.d in Linux. That's much more intuitive!
As to your difficulty in opening Control Panel. You bring up Metro, you click All Applications and there it is. Though a lot of the things regular users will want to manage have been moved into the Charms menu. (Silly name, but there you have it).
Nah mate, it's not just Start I'm talking about. Having stuff active in unlabeled hotcorners or random locations that are only active in certain contexts is pretty bloody silly in a new iteration of a very menu-drive operating system; almost as silly as forcing a touchscreen-paradigm interface onto keyboard and mouse users.
If it works for you, fair enough. That doesn't mean it'll work for all, nor does it mean you can dismiss potential (or actual) problems other people can see. (It probably also means you shouldn't assume that when people mention 802.1x they automatically mean IEEE1394 connections and not eg WLAN connections, but never mind that...)
Can I drag this invisible button to the top? That is my preferred location for the task bar and start menu and only very briefly confuses guests (most of whom ask how I did that and some go on to relocate their own taskbars to top, left or right). Do we now lose this customisation or do we have to guess the location of the invisible button? Either way, negative marks.
I love how you assume that because you are willing to poke and prod an OS every which way just to see what happens, that everyone else must as well.
Microsoft knew this new OS would be radically different. Yet they have made zero effort to educate people on how to do even the most basic things. When Apple reversed the behaviour of two-fingered scrolling, you had to go through a tutorial and then demonstrate that you understood the change before you could even log in the first time. There was nothing stopping Microsoft from doing something similar, but they didn't. Instead they left everyone to the mercy of a completely new and foreign interface that isn't even remotely similar to the previous one.
The vast majority of the world will take one look at the interface, not have the foggiest idea how to even START (pardon the pun), and conclude it's crap. And as far as I'm concerned, not to mention virtually every person I've spoken to, that is a completely reasonable attitude. People like you are an overwhelming minority in this world. Windows is there to get work done. Not to play "Where did Microsoft hide the function I want THIS time?".
And before you jump to the inevitable "Well I can't help it if you're too dumb..." line, let me point out it has nothing to do with ability or lack thereof. It has everything to do with not giving a rats posterior. Between work, family, and a myriad other obligations, it boils down to the simple fact that the majority of people flat out don't CARE. I have work to do. I have a family to worry about. The computer in front of me either facilitates that work, or it doesn't. If it hinders my ability to do work, then it's crap. PERIOD.
"Microsoft knew this new OS would be radically different. "
Actually, the point here is that the OS is not radically different. Its an incremental change from the previous operating system.
This is mainly a User Interface release.
I use Windows 7 at work. I use it because I have to really. Its the standard we use for a lot of our documentation. I use Windows 7 at home for netflix and a couple other things. Its an entertainment system there. There are no areas where I use it because I love it. I use it where it is standardized or the only game in town.
Therein lies what I consider to be the real issue with Microsoft. A lot of people use it because they have to. Its a tool. Its sole purpose is to really not get in the way of whatever its role is in that person's life. I don't use Visio because I chose it. I don't use Word because I chose it. I don't use Excel because I chose it. I use them because it was mandated. The OS just comes along for the ride. I understand the concept of improvement. I just simply don't see this change as improvement. Its a cross-marketing ploy by Microsoft. Nothing about Metro was done for my benefit.
And, if you disable Metro to get Windows 7 desktop functionality, then there really isn;t much point to Windows 8.
"I love how you assume that because you are willing to poke and prod an OS every which way just to see what happens, that everyone else must as well."
And I feel that love, I really do! And quite frankly I love how people keep re-phrasing what I wrote (move a mouse to the bottom left just as you did in Win7) to things like "poke and prod an OS every which way just to see what happens".
Half will work it out in no time. Half will probably watch the (I expect) inevitable "Welcome to Windows 8" video that will probably be on there and the third half will just ask someone else and be told - a process that will take five seconds.
Seriously, the action is almost exactly the same as in Windows 7 with two exceptions - one, if you're on a full screen application, you can still trigger the Metro screen without losing screen estate to the button as you do in Windows 7, i.e. you can get true full screen. And secondly, if you have multiple monitors as many of us do on desktop machines these days, you get the functionality by default on both monitors, meaning you don't have to travel your mouse all the way between the two.
And obviously it works well on hybrid devices where sometimes you'll use a keyboard and mouse and sometimes just use it as a tablet.
So what exactly do YOU prefer. No progress and everything always stays the same, or about a minute of inconvenience for some people who either can't work it out or refuse to read / watch instructions or ask someone? The answer to that question should be obvious. And yes, I do mean "progress". I've just listed actual things that you can do with the new version that you can't with the old that will be useful to many people.
I have to disagree with you here. The Metro UI works really well on a Mobile device in IMO its the best UI and OS on a Mobile Phone. I have had a HD7, HTC Titan and Lumia 900 and not once had an issue with the OS or phone where I have had a Iphone 3gs and 4 as well as a HTC Desire HD and every one of them I had issues with and even slow down in the OS.
As for Windows 8 I have been using it as my man OS for a few months now and at 1st I was unsure if it was going to work but now I have it setup to work as I want it too and I also have Office 2013 I can say I don't want to go back to Windows 7 style start menu.
The start menu is really the only big difference in the new OS when you use it it on a Intel processor you use it as a old style Windows OS but it seems to run faster on my laptop than windows 7 did and it seem alittle more stable.
Add the Metro UI to the start menu and the live tiles this give me all my Emails/News/Events/tasks/social updates and more at a glance and is uncluttered too.
The Apps and Metro UI is going to be used more on Windows RT than the X32/64 version as they will be a lot more Arm tablets about than Intel once as MS go after the Tablet market and having the same UI across Tablets, PC's, Phone and Xbox will only help MS in the long run.
Windows 8 is not for everyone but that is just like anything in life from technology to food. But at the end of the day It all about choice and what people seem to be forgetting is Android and and IOS are all mobile OS's not full OS's so they are limited with windows 8 no one will be limited to anything or any devce.
If an OS due to its UI is not for everyone then it's a marketing failure. It's just that simple.
And MetroUI sucks on smartphone and tablets too.
There is a reason why WindowsPhone7.x with MetroUI got only 2-3% of the market so far. And WindowsPhone8 is not going to do any better.
Also even just thinking that the future on desktop and server is that of having big touch screen displays it's a childish flawed concept. It would be just a plain mess.
And if a touch screen device is needed for some applications an iPad would do the job better with an app for that.
No one wants to use their monitors as tablets. Also it would be a mess having the arms on the monitor in front of you all the time, just a plain nonsense mess. A big fail that's what MetroUI is all about.
Its not just that friend, its the fact that MSFT wants to send us back to 1993. When MSFT was putting out an OS every couple of years frankly we were at the beginning of the MHz wars so by the time that new Windows came out? You were ready to chunk anyway as your machine would struggle with the latest software.
That just isn't the case anymore people, PCs haven't HAD to be upgraded since they went multicore. I have customers on first gen Core Duos and Phenom I X3 and you know what? they are happy. the machines are fast, run their software well, and since the boxes are paid for its a sunk cost.
It is THIS, this right here, that MSFT refuses to accept. I have just recently gotten the last of my customers switched to Win 7, do you think they are gonna want to switch NOW? When they finally have everything working perfectly? Even my home customers don't switch every 3 years anymore, I have plenty of them on Pentium Ds and Athlon X2s and they are again happy with what they have. Laptops and desktops last longer than ever before and there hasn't been a "killer app" that would require upgrading systems in years.
Mark my words Win 8 will be the new MS Bob because its simply not what the market wants or needs. if they would have kept Metro on mobile, and made Win 8 desktop just a souped up Win 7? It probably would have sold well. but nobody wants to treat their widescreen desktop as an oversized cell phone.
This post has been deleted by its author
As it'll be installed on new PCs and laptops soon enough, many will experience the shock and horror of something new that's different to what they're used to. But only a moron will still be struggling after a day or two. I personally find it very pleasant to use (just discovered IE10 has a spell check built in, about time too) and to a casual, over the shoulder, user it looks like I'm using Win 7 - because for 99% of my time that's the experience I'm having.
I'll give myself a thumbs up to counter all the thumbs downs I'll get from the aforementioned morons...
> But only a moron will still be struggling after a day or two
Let's assume you're right, and say one day. That means the added cost of adopting windows is one day's salary. Multiply up. Or just think of the economic loss as being the same as a flu epidemic (regular flu, not the killer variety).
That's the downside. Now, what is the upside, that makes you happy to pay for this shoer-term loss of productivity? Upside for your organisation, that is. Not for Microsoft.
When most folk get a new PC or laptop there's invariably some drop in productivity anyway (unless they're using it purely as a thin client) so unless they've upgraded the OS for the hell of it, I don't think there's much additional productiviy loss there.
There's a lot of good stuff new in Win 8; faster boot time and storage spaces are a couple of upsides that work for me.
"Now, what is the upside, that makes you happy to pay for this shoer-term loss of productivity? Upside for your organisation, that is. Not for Microsoft"
There's some nice stuff in Win8 for BYOD. If I can have even program installs be part of someone's profile that I host in my own private cloud and be able to swap in any generic machine without having to worry about who has what software, that's a plus. If someone wants to use their own machine or take their work one off-site and I can lock down software on it to only be "installed" when they are connected to my secure VPN or on-site, then that's a plus. Ditto for document storage although that's more a part of Server 2012 and can be backwards-used on Win7 as well. Particularly I like not having to worry about uninstalling software and freeing up licences on people's personal machines that they own. Unassign the licence and transfer it to a different (or replacement employee) and Office is gone from their machine, for example.
Also, if I know that most of my employees just need Word and Outlook and our internal accounting system, I can give them a "Start Menu" that is just these three things and they never really have to leave it. Their screen is their program with Metro and they just flip between them as needed. Good for those people who are computer-phobic. Metro apps will remember their state. I just have to tell all the users - press the windows key and click on the program. No menu, no finding Excel under Office - just hit the key and select one of the four or five big boxes. Perfect. ;)
It's crazy isn't it? All these top computer professionals ranting about how they won't be able to do their work, how nobody will be able to figure out this new interface, how it was designed purely as a means of torture by a giant corporation employing people who hate life. Meanwhile their 8 year old kids will be using Metro just fine from day 1, and laughing at how angry Dad gets about it.
I'm fine with new OSs, just not with new interfaces. Even then, I'm fine with well thought-out, logical improvements. I Like many of the OS changes in Windows 7 - it is hard not to see the benefit in a more secure OS - but the interface annoys the hell out of me and it slows me down.
As a tech,I use both XP/2003 and Windows 7/2008R2 - probably an equal amount - and the simple truth is that, for me, XP/2003 is a more efficient interface overall. That means that I am able to work better and with less stress when using XP than 7. It's not good enough to simply say "you'll get used to it" or to dismissively blame users for their unwillingness to change.
Windows 7 is the clear technical choice but I nothing about the deep-down OS changes requires a new interface. That's the problem with Windows 8 - the interface change.
As an outsourced IT provider, We manage thousands of users across dozens of different companies. Many of these companies are too small to warrant rolling out entirely new PCs for all staff and simply replace PCs as needed. That means that at any one time they will have 3 operating systems in the mix. That's OK, until they have three different interfaces.
As for us, is is ridiculously annoying to have to talk clients through issues or create instructions when we have figure out which OS they are on first and then connect to a similar machine to talk them through issues.
It's my opinion that the biggest driver of the Metro UI and the related changes is Windows 8 is the desire to get in on the 'apps' action. Microsoft want to make your easiest option the one that involves paying them more, even if it is to get something that is elsewhere available for free.
Back in the day when MS realized they missed the Internet boat all sails were set at getting up to speed, the keyword being internet. Even up to a point where they rendered the desktop totally unusable ('active desktop'; no icons could be placed on screen). The masses roared and it eventually got rectified.
Now MS seems to be under the impression that they missed the touch / tablet boat. Everything is cast aside to make sure the OS is touch friendly, even up to a point where its honestly rendered unusable for common desktop usage.
Add up the Metro lock in (read: MS tries to get all 3rd party software cut off and instead channelled through their marketplace) and one has to wonder how much of a desktop OS is really left ?
There is however one major difference between the two periods; back then we had no competition on the desktop, now we have some. MS has already grossed in a huge sales loss over the last quarter of 2012, one can only wonder how much more is about to follow (if any) ?
How long before Ballmer starts to wonder if there are still some people around who can program a start menu from scratch ?
".......Now MS seems to be under the impression that they missed the touch / tablet boat....." Agreed, M$ is making the same mistake it made with the original WinPhone and trying to make one OS to rule all device types. By dragging development towards the tablet end of the spectrum M$ will damage their desktop side. But that might not be too much of an issue. And this is why.
"....There is however one major difference between the two periods; back then we had no competition on the desktop, now we have some...." No. There is competition if you are talking consumer users, but the enterprise isn't interested in Linux desktops in any great number, and definitely not in Apple. Despite Linux on the desktop having been capable of replacing 99% of enterprise Windows desktops for over a decade, I've beaten my head against the procurement wall enough to know the desktop is still M$'s to lose. Apple is daydreaming if it thinks it has a chance, unless Apple manages to persuade everyone to forget about the cost restraints of the downturn and switch to tablets, in which case M$ has it covered with tablet-friendly Win8.
Suddenly, M$ doesn't look so stupid. They can afford to take the time to tune Win8 for desktop users as the fact that enterprises are putting off desktop upgrades affects ALL desktop competitors too, and in the meantime those existing desktops are keeping M$ in prime position when it does come to upgrades and replacements. But they need a weapon now to keep Apple at bay on tablets.
You missed the elephant in the room.
In the Enterprise world, just about everyone stuck with XP until around now and most are at some stage of a 7 migration, quite the reverse of putting off updates in fact. Once that's complete they'll be expecting to sit on it for a while, so 8 has pretty much nowhere to go in that market. MS are well aware of this and are taking the opportunity to pilot touch with the consumer market. Lessons learned will go into 9.
The even bigger elephant is the reluctance of major IT departments in huge corporations, governments and in education to throw more good money after all they've wasted on fundamentally defective Microsoft products.
I work in Government - we simply do not want to give Redmond another penny. We're taking steps to ensure that this happens. M$ keep promising "free" gifts to us, but we now resist - their largesse is entirely bogus. M$ are now losing money at a significant rate - they have a vast array of overpaid executives and even more underpaid programmers who don't give a damn.
M$ are several years behind the curve, and continually fail to understand the market, the wants of users, the need for REAL security (NOT possible on any type of Windows), and how to get a small, efficient OS working in most environments. They are hampered by legacy code (that's undocumented but essential), by ineptitude and the "Too Many Chiefs" syndrome.
Hopefully, it's Game Over for M$!
"Obviously you missed this...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/20/microsoft_posts_first_ever_loss/"
You should read your own article though. It points out that it's the result of spending $6.2bn on trying to take over the company aQuantive (thankfully it was a disaster as we don't need MS developing a major stake in the advertising business) and of having to defer another half a billion in profits for legal reasons. Your article, and I quote, says: "this quarter may be the Redmond-haters' last chance to gloat."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
