Why do people hate Windows 8.?

[colinkiama]

Just wait a few more years and people will get used to modern/metro UI.

 

[WillysJeepMan]

People hate it because they are used to the familiar things. They get scared.

That was certainly the reason for SOME people who dislike Windows 8, but not for everyone who does.

Can you honestly say that Windows 8 represents a cohesive UI experience? Some system settings can be accessed via the charms bar others via the old control panel. Inconsistent. It is clear that Metro is designed for a touch interface. But it appears on devices without a touchscreen. That makes using a mouse/touchpad inconsistent and not very intuitive.... since the mouse behaved differently in Metro than it did on the desktop.

I know that some will reply that it is a work in progress... well, maybe it is BECAUSE it is a work in progress that some dislike Windows 8. I know it is in fashion to blame the customer for Microsoft's missteps, but it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft mishandled the introduction of a new interface and paradigm.

Ever use Metro on a 27" monitor? end-of-story.

 

[iamtim]

It took many more hours fumbling with common software that does not work with Win 8 like the Cisco VPN client.

Which Cisco VPN client? I use Cisco AnyConnect on my Windows 8.1 system at home all the time, it works flawlessly.

 

[a5cent]

Yes both "10 minutes" and "weeks" are exaggerations admittedly. It takes you 10 minutes because you are a desktop support type of professional or you have done it before.

Yes. It's exaggerated. I suspect that in reality I don't even require five minutes, but maybe we aren't talking about the same thing. I admit to spending two to three hours reading up on Windows 8. However, for me that is no different from every other Windows release I've ever used. If you want to get any value out of using a new desktop OS, you'll have to read up on what's changed. In those areas that interest me, I'll dig deeper so as to develop an understanding of how it actually works, which I find essential in order to use a computing device efficiently. Since most of W8' changes are UI related, it has been one of the simplest new Windows releases to understand. None of it is complicated. It's just different.

Now that I've done my homework and understand it, configuring a new W8 installation to "desktop mode only" is simple. I've spent more time writing this post than it would take me to complete that task.

That is the biggest shock and most unnecessary move I have ever seen. Why did they have to get rid of a very well functioning menu system? And still not bring it back? Why?

Because it wasn't "well functioning". I've always hated the dinky start menu. Half the time I couldn't read the entire name of the programs that were tucked away in nested start menu folders. I think you are confusing "well functioning" with "I've grown used to it". Again... there is nothing about the start screen that is functionally inferior to the start menu. Everything the start menu could do the start screen can also do... often better. If you think the start screen is functionally inferior, then you're not understanding something. No matter what task, even the amount of mouse clicks required are either identical or fewer.

Change is not good for the sake of change.

Agreed. Then it's a good thing that the start screen hasn't just changed for the sake of it, but has become a more powerful version of what was previously the start menu. ;-)

If you time traveled someone from the 50's to today, they would probably recognize almost everything in your kitchen. There's microchips in everything now, but a fridge is still a fridge, and oven is still an oven, a sink is still a sink. Why no radical changes? Answer: because there is no need, it all works well enough!

I think that is a very poor analogy. Just the fact that software is far more malleable and multi-functional than kitchen appliances invalidates it. A fridge will never be anything but a volume of cooled air used primarily to preserve food. That severely limits the extent of possible innovation. Compare that to computing devices, which are used for a thousand different things (from entertainment to bookkeeping to scientific simulations), by billions of people with thousands of different professions, each of which have different and unique requirements. The possibilities for innovation are endless. The OS should support as many of those scenarios as possible. The computing device is literally the most configurable device ever invented by man. With that flexibility comes some complexity however, part of which is more frequent change and adaptations. That is simply unavoidable

If the kitchen appliance analogy held any weight, we'd be using our smartphones by typing in DOS boxes or running shell scripts, because for someone who never experienced anything beyond a command prompt, todays graphical user interfaces would also be a completely unrecognizable. The only way the kitchen appliance analogy makes sense, is if you truly believe that graphical user interfaces have been perfected, and that from this point onwards, any innovation can only make things worse. I doubt we are anywhere close to having perfected the graphical user interface.

 

[link68759]

That was certainly the reason for SOME people who dislike Windows 8, but not for everyone who does.

Can you honestly say that Windows 8 represents a cohesive UI experience? Some system settings can be accessed via the charms bar others via the old control panel. Inconsistent. It is clear that Metro is designed for a touch interface. But it appears on devices without a touchscreen. That makes using a mouse/touchpad inconsistent and not very intuitive.... since the mouse behaved differently in Metro than it did on the desktop.

I know that some will reply that it is a work in progress... well, maybe it is BECAUSE it is a work in progress that some dislike Windows 8. I know it is in fashion to blame the customer for Microsoft's missteps, but it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft mishandled the introduction of a new interface and paradigm.

Ever use Metro on a 27" monitor? end-of-story.

What are you even talking about?

The regular control panel has everything. There's a ModernUI version of the control panel that controls some of the more common control panel elements (winupdate) and also houses the ModernUI specific settings.

The mouse doesn't suddenly behave differently anywhere. You point and click. What's unintuitive here?

I use ModernUI apps (Netflix, youtube) on my 42" TV, with a mouse and keyboard. Better than desktop windows, precisely because of the larger interface elements keep things visible from an appropriate TV viewing distance.

I use modernUI on my 26" monitor I sit right in front of. The size of the UI elements don't somehow offend me- you didn't really elaborate on that irrational remark.

The whole "it's not cohesive" ... "argument" doesn't really hold any water. The apps are part of an entirely new ecosystem- you should be able to instantly and easily identify that you are not in the traditional desktop. Apps behave differently, intentionally, and it's intelligently designed to be different partially so you're not confused as to what you're using and what to expect. There are good reasons for this, but instead of wasting my time spelling it out, I could easily just point out that you never need to use ModernUI, or even the explorer shell for that matter.

 

[anon(5445874)]

What are you even talking about?

The regular control panel has everything. There's a ModernUI version of the control panel that controls some of the more common control panel elements (winupdate) and also houses the ModernUI specific settings.

The mouse doesn't suddenly behave differently anywhere. You point and click. What's unintuitive here?

I use ModernUI apps (Netflix, youtube) on my 42" TV, with a mouse and keyboard. Better than desktop windows, precisely because of the larger interface elements keep things visible from an appropriate TV viewing distance.

I use modernUI on my 26" monitor I sit right in front of. The size of the UI elements don't somehow offend me- you didn't really elaborate on that irrational remark.

The whole "it's not cohesive" ... "argument" doesn't really hold any water. The apps are part of an entirely new ecosystem- you should be able to instantly and easily identify that you are not in the traditional desktop. Apps behave differently, intentionally, and it's intelligently designed to be different partially so you're not confused as to what you're using and what to expect. There are good reasons for this, but instead of wasting my time spelling it out, I could easily just point out that you never need to use ModernUI, or even the explorer shell for that matter.

Trolls will be trolls. Anyway, I use win 8.1 on four 30 inch monitors. It's so awesome! The only thing that comes close is my surface pro 2, and that's only because I can work from anywhere. It's all just fantastic and wonderful stuff. LOVE IT!!!!

 

[EC Translating Services]

If my two cents count i don't hate Win 8. Bought it since day one and i have always been happy. My only rant is some confusion with duplicated menus and the Metro interface that's not suitable for work. Installed Classic Shell, and never had one single crash or issue.

It's perhaps the best Win version MSFT ever did in terms of stability.

 

[anon(5445874)]

If my two cents count i don't hate Win 8. Bought it since day one and i have always been happy. My only rant is some confusion with duplicated menus and the Metro interface that's not suitable for work. Installed Classic Shell, and never had one single crash or issue.

It's perhaps the best Win version MSFT ever did in terms of stability.

The metro interface is totally suited for work. I use it all the time, non stop! And if you really want to think that, go ahead. They put options for you to log directly into the desktop. You should have anything to complain about. And just for people like you they are even bringing back a start menu. I will personally use the full screen menu because it makes more sense. that small clunky menu that's shoved in the corner is so 1990's.

 

[Chregu]

Windows 7 is great. I love it (and still use it at work). Then Windows 8 came along and it was just terrible to use on my two big screens at home.

Metro apps are totally useless on a desktop computer, there's still none I use. So the Metro "start menu" is absolutely useless too. There's nothing of interest to me, and still it occupies my entire screen and takes me out of my work flow. Also, Windows 8 was just Windows 7 with the Metro surface put on it, and it showed that Microsoft just didn't have time to do it in a good way. Everything was really disconnected.

With 8.1 things have much improved, it's okay now. I'm still looking forward to the new old start menu though.

Metro might be great on tablets, it might be good on touch screen laptops, I really dislike it on my computer. And I have nothing against the design language at all, as I'm using Windows Phone since WP7 was released.

Call me old fashioned, call me scared of new things (even though I think that's really silly), I just didn't like Windows 8.

And I notice that some of you really confuse Windows 8 (very disconnected) and Windows 8.1 (much improved in this regard) in this thread.

 

[EC Translating Services]

Different needs, different tastes mate. I love W8/8.1. I bought it with 0 regrets. Had no crashes ever since, this without considering how fast it boots.

That said, i hate those fixed windows, i hate the tiles in the metro interface i hate basically everything about that side. I have a touch laptop too and still use the classic one. Just don't like the other. I hate when i open skype and can't put it as i want on my screen, I hate the slow market (on two i7 with 16GB and 100MB connection). It's just time consuming. You can tell me what you want, but as much as i love the OS (and God if i love it), i can't manage to like those tiles. So welcome be the classic menus. You can keep going with the modern UI. Peace

 

[iamtim]

I hate when i open skype and can't put it as i want on my screen

...you know that you can download and use the regular Skype desktop app, yes?

 

[a5cent]

Metro apps are totally useless on a desktop computer, there's still none I use. So the Metro "start menu" is absolutely useless too.

I agree with many of your posts, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Can you explain how not wanting to use metro apps on your desktop makes the start screen (no, it's not the metro "start menu") useless? I see absolutely no relationship between the two. None. Zero. Zilch. The start screen makes perfect sense even without using a single metro app. I think my earlier posts explained why. No?

You might as well say that video games are totally useless to you on your desktop computer, so the taskbar is absolutely useless too.... makes sense... not.

 

[Chregu]

I agree with many of your posts, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Can you explain how not wanting to use metro apps on your desktop makes the start screen (no, it's not the metro "start menu") useless? I see absolutely no relationship between the two. None. Zero. Zilch. The start screen makes perfect sense even without using a single metro app. I think my earlier posts explained why. No?

You might as well say that music software is totally useless to you on your desktop computer, so the taskbar is absolutely useless too.... makes sense... not.

You're right, I might have taken a big shortcut here. It worked out in my head ;-)

What I meant is that the big to huge icons (on a big screen, not on a tablet I mean) are pretty much useless if they don't show information. But as I don't use Metro apps there are no apps that provide information for the start screen. And even if they did (actually, I use some Metro apps just for this), it's still more practical to open a tab in the browser that's running on the desktop anyway and get the information faster and more detailed.

There's also no use of the email app - just as another example - as I have Outlook running anyway on every desktop computer and laptop I use, again no need to put a Metro surface over everything I have on the desktop just for the start menu.

The Windows 7 start menu offers everything I need, and even though I don't mind the Metro menu anymore since 8.1, I still think it's just an unnecessary distraction. I use the Win 7 menu sometimes, I just have stopped using the Win 8 menu.

Makes more sense? Makes sense to me ;-)

 

[Sport Driver]

Someone asked if anyone tried using metro interface on 27" screen, well I'm using it every day. Rarely use normal desktop. I find apps very useful. I often use Tapatalk and I also use FB and Twitter. I also love Windows 8.1 because it's looks so modern, whole room looks much more modern with metro interface on my screen.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 820 using Tapatalk

 

[a5cent]

Makes more sense? Makes sense to me ;-)

Yeah. Makes much more sense now. ;-) I normally wouldn't protest what you wrote there, but since you took it overboard the first time, you will now have to put up with my nit-picking ;-) Sorry ;-)

What I meant is that the big to huge icons (on a big screen, not on a tablet I mean) are pretty much useless if they don't show information. But as I don't use Metro apps there are no apps that provide information for the start screen.

Yes, the "big to huge icons" are useless if they show no information. And? So what? Why is that a problem?

If you don't like the large tiles, you can select them all and, with a single click, shrink them down to the same size that pinned icons have always been (or any icon placed on the desktop for that matter). No difference... oh... except that using the start screen you can now organize and group your pinned icons in ways that are far more powerful than what was possible using the W7 desktop and start menu.

More importantly, who is to say that large icons will always remain useless for desktop software? For example, just like you, I too use desktop Outlook (I uninstalled the metro mail client), and I believe desktop Outlook would be much improved if it too supported live tile functionality. I suspect (hope) it's just a matter of time until that happens. Would that make the start screen better/more useful to you? I think it would. However, at the same time, the fact that such functionality isn't yet supported doesn't make the start screen conceptually worse today.

as I have Outlook running anyway on every desktop computer and laptop I use, again no need to put a Metro surface over everything I have on the desktop just for the start menu.

I suspect you meant start screen, otherwise I don't understand the sentence.

Anyway, Microsoft isn't putting a metro surface over everything just for the sake of including a live tile on the start screen. They are putting a metro surface over everything to make touch friendy software for the folks using tablets. For you, as a desktop user, that should make absolutely no difference. I guarantee you there are at least a thousand Windows features that you've never used. That hasn't made Windows any worse for you so far. The existence of a metro styled mail client shouldn't either. Just uninstall it or don't use it.

In summary, I can understand people not liking metro apps on the desktop. However, I think many people aren't able to mentally separate the start screen from the metro runtime environment. Metro apps and the start screen may all be blocky and may be rendered using similar colours, but that is a very superficial way of judging two separate concepts that are barely related (from a technical point of view). I think this is where you stumbled, but in contrast to you, many won't ever recognize the difference. I think the start screen is takeing a lot of unjustified flack for that reason.

 

[link68759]

Also, Windows 8 was just Windows 7 with the Metro surface put on it, and it showed that Microsoft just didn't have time to do it in a good way. Everything was really disconnected.
.

Gonna stop you there.

Actually, the changes to the kernel and under the hood improvements are very, very significant. 8 is not just a new skin, which is why it's stupid that people still cling to 7. If you absolutely cannot adapt to the start screen, go buy the stardock win8 start menu.

A lot of people stubbornly stick to 7 and they're really not doing anything but coming off as morons (not you specifically, I know some people who are just really....hhhh)- all they're doing is abstaining from objective system updates / improvements because they couldn't be bothered to spend two minutes installing one of the many start menu clones for 8? Or even, just use one of the thousands of 3rd party program launchers? Launchers which exist btw precisely because the XP and 7 start menus just aren't very good... My point being, 8 is a huge major new OS, and windows had always had a large degree of customization through 3rd party tools. These 3rd party customizations have not gone anywhere with 8, and barring the rare incompatibility, there's just no valid reason to actively choose 7 over 8.

 

[link68759]

I also want to go on record as saying I love the idea of apps on the desktop (yes with mouse and keyboard). I love the idea of lives tiles on desktop.

That said, at the time of writing there just aren't enough useful ones. The ModernUI idea is solid, but it's hard to defend it when I have nothing to point to.

I have maybe 4 apps I use and 5 live tiles. :/

Here's why apps have the potential to be good.

A) Desktop programs can and will create files and registry entries at will, and rarely clean them up upon uninstall. Over time this causes conflicts and wastes space.

The ModernUI environment fixes this.

B) System integrity and security. An elevated desktop program can do anything, and a lot of programs request elevation to run for no good reason. So the security model comes down to trusting the program to not abuse power. You need to elevate to install anything too...

ModernUI fixes this.

C) User privacy. Apps have isolated stores and are sandboxed. This means, the facebook app cannot use tracking cookies or LSOs or scripts to track your purchases in the amazon app. If more sites released good apps, users would use the browser less and average Joe would unwittingly be better for it. Also, you can do more with an app than a web site, and have better performance than in a browser to boot.

ModernUI could do this with more developer adoption.

D) performance and battery life. Desktop programs are just free to use whatever resources, whenever. A poorly programmed facebook notifier that sits in the system tray could be abusing your battery and CPU and RAM.

ModernUI solves this with restricted background agents and the standardization of push notifications.

E) Active notifications are distressing and distracting. You're trying to get work done, and facebook beeps at you. Or your email clients dings.

Live tiles are silent, and passive. You check them, they don't come to you.

Many people wonder why Microsoft would do something as stupid as make "apps only for touch screens" on desktop. It's because they're beginning to fix major flaws in their operating system numb nuts, and for all the flack about "old people find it confusing", it's really, really a better system for those who are not so tech savvy.

 

[iamtim]

Metro apps are totally useless on a desktop computer

I could not disagree more. I use Mail and Calendar instead of Microsoft Outlook, Reader instead of Adobe Acrobat Reader, OneNote instead of... eh... OneNote, and a whole slew of other Metro apps. I get TONS of use out of them.

 

[anon(5445874)]

It's pretty simple, if you actually use windows 8, you'll never go back to 7. Even if you just ignore the start screen, there are many new features that make life much easier. I'm not even going to bring them up because everyone that's here and reading this stuff either knows what these things are or they are just here to hate anything MS does. Sure there are a few people who hate change and a few who just cannot learn new things, but in reality not many people actually hate windows 8. It's a few people yelling on the street corner that windows 8 sucks. And because of those few people making all that noise, a lot of people just assume its true. I've had people tell me that W8 isn't good. I ask them why, they have no real answers. So I show them how windows 8 actually works, and they actually like it. And stop it with this mouse and keyboard crap. Even before the new 8.1 stuff, windows 8 was just fine with a keyboard and mouse, sure it's better now and it will only get better as we go. I wouldn't go back to 7 if someone paid me. Also, just having the app store adds so much more to windows 8. I remember the old days on 7... when you had to download a youtube video, having to install stuff with spyware, or using sites that worked for a while and then didn't work, risking the safety of your computer daily. The Windows Store and it's apps are one of the greatest things to ever be added to windows.

 

[a5cent]

I also want to go on record as saying I love the idea of apps on the desktop (yes with mouse and keyboard).
A, B, C, D E snipped

All of those properties result from being tied to the metro runtime environment, which in turn is tied to the metro UI. I agree that all those properties are desirable. I agree that those properties should also be available/enforced for desktop software. However, I don't think the metro UI should be a necessary part of that. Basically, I disagree that you wanting those properties in affect for your software should make you prefer a certain type of UI design language! None of those properties have anything to do with UI design. More importantly, both UI design languages have their place. Neither can replace the other, but they are good at addressing the specific user interface challenges they were designed to overcome. It wouldn't make sense to invalidate a relatively successful UI design language, due to a host of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the software interface design.

If it is those properties you want (I do too), then IMHO you shouldn't be advocating for metro apps on the desktop. Instead you should be advocating that a new and scrubbed version of the Win32 API be released that imposes that level of tidiness, simplicity and security on all Windows software. IMHO this is long overdue. IMHO it is time for MS to break with the past. We don't just need a new metro runtime environment. We also need a new Windows desktop environment.