Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'. Learning a new window system is always taxing on the brain because our brains code repeated movements into our muscles so we don't have to think about them, when you change the rules and have to re-train muscle memory its harsh. I give the guy credit for giving it 8 months.
That said, on the 'preview' edition I loaded you could simply turn off the UI formerly known as Metro which gave you a kind of windows 7 plus experience. Nothing I tried forced me to use the Metro UX if it was disabled, now I'm curious if this is not true in the released version.
I agree. Windows XP which is still floating around in so many places is actually not all that easy to grasp for someone who has not used a computer before.
I recently installed Ubuntu on a laptop for my grandmother who is in her 80's and has never used a computer before. All she wanted to do was to type up her memoirs. When I told people I was installing a linux distribution for her, everybody told me how difficult it would be for her to use.
In reality, this is for a person who constantly holds the mouse upside down, doesn't understand the concept of clicking and dragging to highlight text, etc. Now try to tell her to launch an application by:
- clicking on the little "Start" menu
- navigating through a menu of tiny items
- reading each one as she goes
- making sure to not accidentally click on something which will open up the wrong program
- click on the little "x" in the opposite corner when she accidentally opens up the wrong program
- etc...
Her Ubuntu machine automatically opens up gedit in full screen when she turns the computer on, autosaves every minute, commits to version control every five minutes (in case she accidentally deletes everything then it autosaves) and turns off when she closes the laptop lid.
Yes, you could do this in windows, yes, the default interaction paradigm of Gnome 2 is similar to windows, Gnome 3 is strange, unity is different, etc.
But the point is, if you have never seen any of them before, they are frustrating and difficult. I still don't know how to correctly navigate a save dialog in Windows 7 on the rare occasion I'm using Windows. I have been using Gnome3 for a while now, and I finally understand how it works and is meant to be used (for the most part). That doesn't mean I think its awesome, bit it gets the job done.
Now that I've been using it for a while, my brain doesn't have to work so hard to get stuff done.
I understand what you mean. My mom has been running Ubuntu for 4 years now and loves it. She handled the Unity transition well too. Last year however, her hard drive died and my cousin let her borrow a windows machine. She hated that thing. I didn't hear the end of how unfriendly and how annoying everything is. I was laughing because that is exactly what I was hearing from ex-Windows users trying to use a Linux desktop.
I still don't know how to correctly navigate a save dialog in Windows 7
Seriously? Maybe you are being purposefully difficult because you have an emotional dislike of Windows? I think Gnome is ok, but it unquestionably has a steeper learning curve than windows, especially when you get outside simple things (like save dialogs).
Perhaps my choice of words was poor. I actually quite liked most of Windows 7 when I installed it on my partners laptop. However, I still get extraordinarily frustrated trying to get to the folders I want in a Windows Vista/7 save dialog.
Sometimes I feel like "Computer" is the top directory, sometimes "Desktop" feels like the top directory, and sometimes "Documents" is the top directory. Then there is the ill-defined (at least to the casual user) "Libraries". I miss the "up" button I am used to from many other contexts. The bar up the top which tells me my current location is thoroughly confusing to me. When I click the right arrow next to "Documents" when I am in the documents library, it shows what seems to be the locations defined by the library (My and Public documents). But when I am in a sub folder of Documents, clicking the right arrow next to Documents shows me the list of folders for the specific part of the library I am in (e.g. subfolders of My or Public documents).
No doubt these are all implemented like this for some very good reasons. I also have no doubt that if I used it as my primary OS, I would adapt relatively quickly. But for someone who only uses Windows to file my tax return and to occasionally help out my partner, I get frustrated.
I don't think you read the same article I did. He mentioned several things that appear to be major bugs, apps that are missing so many key features that they're practically downgrades (like Mail), and things that were removed for no apparent reason (like a clock).
If all of that is just "different", perhaps you're right: Windows 8 has a different bug count than Windows 7, a different number of frustrated users, a different standard for what makes sensible software and ultimately a different idea about what's worth that kind of money.
"There are certain things that you do with your PC every day that should form the basis of the operating system. Email. Instant Message. Calendars. Media Playing. All of these functions in Windows 8 are carried out through Metro apps, and they are universally awful. There are no desktop apps included that do a similar job."
And I thought, you didn't open up a web browser? I do all of those thing on the web and none of them in the OS's UI. Well maybe not media playing.
Whether you think it's a good reason is up to you, but the reason the system clock isn't on screen persistently (it appears if you move into the corner) while a Metro app is active is because of the core design principle that says apps get 100% of the screen and system chrome gets 0%. Of course apps are free to incorporate their own clocks :)
Interesting that most of this boils down to 'its different'
I'm not sure that's fair. I'm reading three types of complaint that aren't simply "it's different":
1. It takes more steps to do things. That's not just different; it makes the UX for those tasks objectively worse, at least for a person who already knew how to do them.
2. The UI is designed for touch and is inefficient with a mouse.
3. Useful functionality, such as being able to have certain types of applications side by side or run multiple instances has been removed.
1. Valid concern if adding an extra mouse click here and there bothers you
2. Only a concern if you think that everything has to be done from the start screen/MetroUI. Everything feels just as it did in Win7 from the desktop in my experience (except Win8 is a bit faster).
3. Once again, only a concern if you intend to only use Metro apps. Windows on the desktop work just as they did in Win7 and multiple instances can be opened with a shift-click on the taskbar or right-click -> click on icon, just like Win7.
Honestly, Windows 8 has been my daily driver since consumer preview came out and after a little time acclimating myself to some of the new nuances, I found myself feeling much more productive in Windows 8 than I was in Windows 7. However, maybe that is just me and I pick up on newer UI/UX better than all of these people that have been complaining and put in the time to give it a try.
Do you work for Microsoft? Your comment:
"Valid concern if adding an extra mouse click here and there bothers you"
sure makes me think so. Yes, adding an extra click here and there is annoying, especially when it didn't add any extra functionality.
I agree with that it doesn't have to be different and that PCs are not tablet, at least on the preview version you could set it to be just like Win7. So I was reading through the article to see if the OP had actually run it in old school mode and still found it unusable. I can't tell. Maybe they will post here.
"The Metro interface is Windows 8. The desktop that you’re used to is also there, but it’s built as a separate app. Think of it this way: Metro is the shell. The desktop is an app within that shell. If you want to start Steam, you’ll want to launch the Desktop app, and then launch Steam.
This is insanity. This is Windows 8."
He then goes on to mention how the desktop is a second-class citizen, most programs default to the metro version, and core OS features are metro-only.
That's not actually true BTW - desktop apps like Steam or whatever get pinned to the Start screen just like other apps, so you can just click on their tiles to open them directly.
There's not an "old school mode" in that the Start screen will always replace the Start menu and there's no way to reverse that without installing third-party software for it. You can choose to only run desktop apps (and set the file associations to desktop apps) and the experience will be 95% the same, though.
There is no "old school mode" left. There are third party utilities to bring back things like the classic start menu, to disable booting into Metro, etc., but it cannot simply be disabled.
You could boil these observations down to "it's different," but that doesn't mean you're not also allowed to come to the conclusion that "it's awful" (or on the flip-side that "it's great"). Nobody would deny that the Windows 8/"Metro" UI and UX is different. Every window system is different, some more than others, and each has it's own pros and cons. Some people might like the Finder in Mac OSX, and some might hate it. It doesn't matter whether the hate is legitimate or defensible or not, what matters is whether your UI/UX and overall OS is compelling enough to convince users that it's worth switching from what they know, or simply worth putting up with in the bigger picture. I would also argue that it doesn't matter whether a user unfair-ably hates it after barely/ignorantly using it, or comes to the conclusion that they hate it after using it thoroughly for 8 months. First impressions are so important - not many people have the time or interest to really dig into a new UI/UX paradigm to find out what's it all about and whether it can improve their workflow. If you fail the first impression by not driving your users in the right direction or giving them some sense of excitement, most times you don't get another chance.
I think where Windows 8 fails is that it doesn't provide me with any compelling reasons why I would want to upgrade from Windows 7, or migrate from Mac OSX or Linux. It doesn't give me any sense of excitement - the paradigm shift from Windows 7 to 8 is not at all like the experience of shifting from something like a Blackberry to an iPhone. I agree with the author - I don't like the Metro start menu, I prefer the old start menu. Maybe that's just me clinging to an old beat-in paradigm, but I don't really see any benefits in the new paradigm. I don't like the full-screen metro apps with limited window management capability and hidden OS "chrome" (clock). I don't like having to use touch-like gestures or memorize new keyboard shortcuts for using all the wonky new features in the OS that don't seem to provide me with any real compelling value. The Windows 8 "optimists" that try to defend the OS by listing out keyboard shortcuts or alternate ways to navigate to different areas, or ways to "hide" Metro UX are kind of missing the point. Most people that provide a laundry list of what they hate are not looking for suggestions or tutorials - the OS has already failed to direct them, and they've simply come to the conclusion that they don't like it.
I think that if you believe the goal of Windows 8 is to compel people to move from 7 to 8, you are missing the point. The goal of Windows 8 is to sell new hardware, specifically touch hardware.
Is that at the expense of the desktop and enterprise users? Only time will tell, but if the touch hardware ends up not working out, are they going to still have the desktop users to fall back on? I guess they probably will because they'll have the people stuck on XP and 7.
Also, if the point is to convince me to buy Windows 8 touch hardware, it has failed there too because the desktop experience was so uncompelling for me, I have no interest in exploring other options.
For one final edit - if they don't want me to upgrade from 7 to 8 on a desktop, what's the reasoning behind the massive price cuts for upgrades. If I bought a PC in the last year or so, I can upgrade from 7 to 8 for $15. Or if I have an old XP machine, I can upgrade for $40. If they don't care about non-touch desktop and laptop users, why would they slash the prices like this?
First, I think that the idea that Microsoft is introducing 8 at the expense of desktop and enterprise users is a straw man argument. I have not heard any reasonable explanation as to why this is the case. All the apps used in 7 still work in 8, and the desktop remains largely unchanged in 8 from the previous version. In addition, the new app model works fine in the current security framework. So if anything, it gives enterprises (built on Windows technologies) a more secure way to deploy touch based apps.
And, by me saying the primary goal is to sell hardware, does not exclude upgrades being a secondary or tertiary goal. Microsoft wants the Windows 8 ecosystem to be as big as possible, hence the cheap price. They want to shift the conversation from devices sold (e.g. iPad, Nexus) to total ecosystem coverage. But, that number is less effective if everyone is just booting into the desktop.
I get what you are saying though, I was also disappointed by the desktop experience. But, in retrospect, I think the desktop was pretty good in 7, so I think the new visual options are a nice addition.
Not really. The new hardware is selling itself already. The goal of Windows 8 is to ensure that Microsoft is still relevant in a world where that hardware dominates the computing marketplace.
That said, on the 'preview' edition I loaded you could simply turn off the UI formerly known as Metro which gave you a kind of windows 7 plus experience. Nothing I tried forced me to use the Metro UX if it was disabled, now I'm curious if this is not true in the released version.