We told you it was shit
But it's still infested with the ribbon, can you get rid of that next please.
Big changes to "key" parts of Windows 8 are coming after Microsoft admitted it “could and should have done more” on its big answer to Apple’s iOS for tablets. “Key aspects” of Windows 8 will be changed, head of marketing and finance for Microsoft’s Windows group Tami Reller has told the Financial Times (log-in needed). Reller …
The real question is: "Why can't we have both ribbon AND traditional menus?"
Given that there are different types of users and strong feelings on both sides, why do Microsoft (and Canonical -- sadly, Linux isn't free of this silliness either) feel that it must be "their way or the highway"?
And, as long as we're bitching, go ahead and move the "show desktop" button from the far left (XP) to the far right (Win7), if you feel the aesthetics of your new OS demand it, but for heaven's sake, make it so I can move it back to where it has been for the past umpty-ump years I have been using XP, if that's what I want to do!
Honestly, this change of UI for the sake of change, with no possibility of user configuration is beginning to annoy me!
> Honestly, this change of UI for the sake of change, with no possibility of user configuration is beginning to annoy me!
Nowadays its fairly well established amongst usability experts that having configuration settings for everything results in a poor and fragmented user experience. I've seen and used plenty of software where lazy developers couldn't decide what approach to take with their UI and so just did both and added a setting to change between the two - good UI developers identify which approach is best and focus all of their efforts on making sure that apprach works well.
You also have increased training and support costs to consider whenever you have two approaches to the same operation.
"good UI developers identify which approach is best"
Best for whom?
In my experience, existing users want new features to fit with the current style, new users don't know better.
Over time, existing users may come to prefer new styles (I actually prefer 2007's ribbon to 2003's menu system now, mostly because of the visual cues, though I still have to hunt for some things) but they don't want to be forced to learn a whole new "user experience paradigm" (that's probably going to change in the next release) just to continue doing what they've always done.
I think this fits perfectly with TIFKAM, which I've disabled on my only Win8 box as much as I could, and have never felt like I'm missing out on something.
"Best for whom?"
Upvoted just because that sentence. With a user base counting in the hundreds of millions, it is incredibly unlikely, if not downright impossible, to find some default that makes everyone happy. Saying that the majority of users are happy with a change means leaving a few tens of millions of users unsatisfied. Which is not acceptable.
Forcing a UI change for the sake of forcing it is pointless. Say you have a setting that makes 80% of Windows users happy, but irritates 20% of them. With a user base of 300MM users, that means 60 million people. Now imagine the entire UK population, about 63MM people, forced to drive in the right side of the road just because that makes the majority of drivers in the rest of the world happy. Extreme example, I know, but one that is quite appropriate.
@Peter Simpson 1 "Why can't we have both ribbon AND traditional menus?"
Because then every feature has to be added in both places, training manuals have to incorporate both methods and the product test matrix expands exponentially. And almost nobody chooses anything but the default setup.
Sorry to disagree, but most modern GUI design tools allow you to create one action (like Save As...), attach it to a handler and then connect this same action to a menu item, a toolbar icon, a ribbon icon, etc. as much as you like. Change the action features in the program and it automatically propagates to all the linked items. You can also easily show or hide all the linked items. No muss, no fuss and no expanded test matrix.
@Peter Simpson
> Given that there are different types of users and strong feelings on both sides, why do Microsoft (and Canonical -- sadly, Linux isn't free of this silliness either) feel that it must be "their way or the highway"?
The trouble is, I think, that any user configuration option can double the amount of testing that needs to be done in order for it to be considered rigorous.
So for something like KDE3.5, where rigorous testing was considered secondary to power and functionality, and bugs were fixed on an "as soon as someone moans about it" basis, we could have a gazillion options, so long as we had the sense to change them back when they broke something.
But now, where software is released by companies interested in profit margins and how many salaried software testers they can get away with laying off, we no longer have user configuration and this is a shame.
It might also be why Apple is doing so well - They pick the optimal configuration for the majority of users and then make it completely inflexible. With Apple it really is their way or the highway, even if it for you it is a good way.
Yeah I've come to feel MS were right and we were all wrong on the Ribbon front... cue downvotes...
Two years in and I still don't really understand it. Up until then I'd managed GUIs from various DOS shells through all Windows reincarnations, Mac OS, KDE, Gnome and countless phones. I guess it's just me.
"[...] loads of stuff that used to be buried in menus like show hidden files and show file extensions are now one click actions on the ribbon."
Those are usually one-off things needed on creating a new user. The default of hiding extensions always seems to confuse people when applications use a common base name with different extensions. Deciphering a filename's accompanying icon is not as easy as learning a few standard extensions.
Interestingly, I've been able to work with Office 2011 w/o problems.
Why? Because the OSX version kept the menus, so I don't have to search the Ribbon for stuff that isn't obvious. I still haven't found how to merge cells in Excel, that I do from the menu. Among other features that are nigh impossible to find in the awful Ribbon. But hey, at least the OSX Ribbon version isn't as huge as the Windows counterpart; it is small enough to not be a nuisance.
"So cluttering the UI with options that I set once per install of the OS is supposed to be an improvement?"
Nope.. It's an excuse.
It's t here, it's different to the old version, so it is an improvement.
They have to figure out something that they can use to justify ribbonising stuff, so they are trying desperately to come up with stuff they can claim is better, but is really just different.
Kind of like when Vista was being criticised, and some tame reviewer did a "top ten reasons to change to Vista" list. One of which was a free MahJong game.
Well having border padding in the UI as opposed to be needed to be changed by using regedit is desirable for me. (I would prefer it if they just made it the default).
The fact you need to be using the US locale to install the RSAT properly is really annoying as well. (Especially if you have a retail copy with the en-gb locale). I don't see why they cannot offer it from Windows Update.
It could be them wanting to make using Hyperv Server 2012 as much as a pita as possible. (Or just them being stupid).
Is now buried in tabs.
Show file extensions is two clicks, you have the select the view tab first. Assuming you know what tab it's on and don't have to go hunting for it.
For something like Office where there are lots of settings the ribbon is no better then the old system of a tool bar for stuff you use all the time, and menus for stuff you only use once in a while. And the ribbon uses up way to much vertical space on a typical wide screen laptops crappy screen.
With Windows 7 you had every program asking to create a shortcut on your desktop. With Windows 8 you get a whole bunch of crap on your "start screen". I used to laugh at people who had a desktop packed full of shortcuts, now that's how it's supposed to work, except now you have to scroll to see them all. No thanks.
Full screen not-metro apps are fine for your phone, I don't want them on my full size computer screen.
- Get rid of the not-metro start screen with all the invisible charm bar junk. (or at least make it an option you can turn off). Give me the start menu back (but you can keep the auto arrange feature.
- Let me run not-metro apps in a window if I find any that are of any use.
the problem is (like most things) the ribbon, toolbar and menu wont suit everyone for everything. So why couldnt they leave the CHOICE in? It isnt hard to do - look at the plethora of various companies toting plugins to work around it.
It is the lack of choice when moving forwards that pisses people off the most. If you dont like ribbon then old fashioned menus will do. Need a prettier GUI? Ribbon is for you.
I wonder how many people on rolling software assurance cashed in at windows 7 because of the clusterfuck. so sure, they sold many copies but corporations wont be upgrading for a while...
You could just hover over the icon and see what it does, in your own language. And as far as I remember there is a key-press that actually shows all of the text at once.
Then the rest of the time the icons actually save space. Dunno, doesn't seem all that crazy to me.
TIFKAM's lack of integration into the rest of windows though... stupid.
Paris because she is integrated into many functions.
This post has been deleted by its author
And Apple weren't the first. Michael Robertson's Linspire was the first to have an app store in the form we are used to seeing today. That was an evolution from apt-get and other similar package management systems on linux and bsd family operating systems. It wasn't even the first app store for OSX, as App Bodega was available before the Apple App Store, also there are a few bsd ports based package management systems available.
I think the main key difference between Apple's app store for OSX and the Windows Marketplace is that you can get actual proper desktop applications in the Apple, whereas on the Windows Marketplace, you can only get full screen apps that seem to be mostly website bookmarks.
Frankly shut down should just be a power switch like it used to be... I hate all this stupid waiting when I want to stop the machine... it should start and stop instantly - and I do mean instantly - if it can't it Bulmer should put his not inconsiderable weight behind making the engineers fix that problem.
Why, did the users no longer know how to shut down?
Er...no. They didn't, actually. Only last week I had to Google to find out how to restart a Windows 2012 server from an RDC connection. And it's not obvious when you're at a console even for a workstation. Several of our VMs now have shortcuts to 'shutdown -r' or whatever on the desktop.
I've put Classic Desktop on the VMs I use most often.
To be fair the few users I know don't have huge problems with Metro. What concerns me is that IT staff and developers hate it and avoid it. That could be storing up problems for the future if the people writing for the platform and the people supporting it rarely use it and dislike it.
Upvoted because, yes, that is annoying!
But it's not limited to a single OS - that is more limited to the admin settings for the machines. We have a selection of servers here and some can be restarted normally, where as others have to be restarted using the shutdown -r command. And yes it is annoying. When I VPN from home to the office I also loose the ability to simply restart the workstation and need that command.
This post has been deleted by its author