Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows

A Serious Proposal To Fix Windows 8 578

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the wget-ubuntu-desktop.iso-and-install dept.
GMGruman writes "Windows 8 is simply not selling, and everyone but Microsoft knows it's a mess of an OS. And the Windows 8.1 'Blue' that Microsoft revealed some details of late last week doesn't address the fundamental flaws. So a team at InfoWorld worked up a serious proposal to rework Windows 8 for both PCs and tablets that fixes those flaws and lets Microsoft's true innovations break free of today's Windows 8, complete with mockups of the proposed Windows 'Red.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Serious Proposal To Fix Windows 8

Comments Filter:
  • by dywolf (2673597) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:08AM (#43903359)

    Nice objective summary

    • by auric_dude (610172) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:14AM (#43903385)
      Red pill or Blue pill? Sorry, red or blue flavour of Windos.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:48AM (#43903601)

      Nice objective summary

      Agreed. Despite the writer's obvious bias in saying "everyone but Microsoft knows it's a mess of an OS", the plain truth is that Microsoft knows it's a mess too.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        No, they don't. Maybe a bunch of people there think so, but the only person whose opinion matters is Steve Ballmer, and I'm sure he thinks Win8 is wonderful.

        • Let me guess that Steve Ballmer is also the only person you know from Microsoft.

          Can you name the lead designers, product managers and development engineers of the Windows team? In the midst of dodging flying chairs, their opinion weighs a lot too.

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            No, they don't. Steve is the CEO, what he says goes. I'm sure there's a bunch of other fools there who think Win8 is wonderful too (and have advised him of such, and of course some of them came up with it in the first place), but the only opinion which really counts in a corporation is the one person at the top.

            • Only relatively small companies can work like that. Ballmer wouldn't even have enough time to review every decision made inside Microsoft. He most probably has a bunch of "lieutenants" inside the company (key persons such as technical directors and product managers) who also steer the company when it comes to decisions.
              • by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @01:11PM (#43906281)

                Well of course he has lieutenants, but they don't call the shots on major decisions, they can only advise him. Windows 8 is not something his lieutenants can just build and put out in the market without the CEO's say-so; it's such a huge thing to the company as a whole it had to have his approval. Plus, part of the impetus for Win8's Metro interface is this crazy idea of having a single UI across all devices, and that's something that spans company divisions, and again, would require CEO approval. Ballmer certainly isn't involved in every little detail of everything MS does, but for the really giant decisions like this, it's unfathomable to think he didn't at least take a look at it and sign off on it. And if you buy into hairyfeet's theories, Win8 is probably largely a product of Ballmer's insistence of trying to one-up Apple, because he's pissed that they got so popular with phones and tablets when MS's efforts in those spaces (which predated Apple's by many, many years) were all so lame and unsuccessful.

                • by jones_supa (887896) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @01:35PM (#43906549)

                  Windows 8 is not something his lieutenants can just build and put out in the market without the CEO's say-so; it's such a huge thing to the company as a whole it had to have his approval. Plus, part of the impetus for Win8's Metro interface is this crazy idea of having a single UI across all devices, and that's something that spans company divisions, and again, would require CEO approval.

                  At the end of the chain, the approval of CEO can be as simple as "yes, looks good, let's push it". But the design and functionality, big building blocks of the new Windows, depend on so many other people too.

    • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @11:35AM (#43905299)

      Nice objective summary

      Actually, it is.

      Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.

      Unless you can explain why someone in a desktop would actually *want* to be subject to tablet limitations like full screen apps, or having to dock apps at specific locations in your screen if you want to work with more than one at a time. I can see why it would be beneficial to be able to run the tablet apps, but if you have a mouse and keyboard, by default they should be placed inside a desktop window that you can do whatever with. Instead, we're being guided by default to use tablet apps instead of desktop ones, and going to a horrible screen that shows a limited set of what you have installed instead of getting a well-organized menu.

      If you install classic shell, Windows 8 is perfectly usable, but it doesn't really add anything to what was already available with Windows 7.

      • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @03:29PM (#43907577)

        Windows 8 on the desktop is broken. This isn't a subjective tastes issue. It is objectively horrible.

        You sound like those fox news commentators insisting that it's a "fact" that Obama is a socialist and "science" that women belong at home with the kids. Simply throwing the words "objective" and "fact" into a sentence doesn't make a statement either. The word you're looking for is "opinion".

        Why would someone want to be subject to limitations like full screen apps? One reason: easier window management. When I'm on an ultrabook I don't have 10 windows open everywhere, there simply isn't enough space. Snapping Skype to one side and IE to the other is superior to me having to juggle arbitrary windows.

        With arbitrary dividing spacing I would rather have dockable windows in defined panes than floating windows most of the time. Almost all of my high end applications have moved to a docked/paned windowing system. The few that haven't like 3ds max are a #()@# nightmare of overlapping dialog windows trying to get to the one I want.

        I love AeroSnap in Windows 7 but I really wish I could define an arbitrary divide point and maintain that point. Instead aero snap means I have to snap and then resize new windows. Which is a hassle with a trackpad or touchscreen.

        Lastly... that's so far only in the Tablet/Laptop side of the OS so I don't know why you're bitching. Regular old school anarchy windowing is still completely in tact (and enhanced) in windows 8. And for Tablet/Laptop apps it's already really nice even if needing a little more polish (see 8.1+ enhancements). I'm hoping that by 8.2 and with the addition maybe of vertical splits in the dock paneling they start offering it as an alternate windowing system for the desktop.

        It's an objective, non-subjective *FACT* that the start screen shows way more icons, and places more icons within a shorter distance of the start button than the start menu. A grid gives you 2 dimensions of applications instead of 1 dimension that means you have an objective (N^2-N) more applications quickly accessible. Microsoft actually changed my mind on this subject with two graphics:
        http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/3730.Page15_2D00_1_5F00_6C5DB0B3.png [msdn.com]

        http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/4300.Page15_2D00_2_5F00_7A2FF6AE.png [msdn.com]

        Also menus are idiotic. If you're using the start menu like it was designed in 1995 you're objectively slower than someone who just hits the start button and types in the first 3 letters of the application name.

        Start -> All Programs -> Adobe Creative Suite -> Photoshop. (took me 10s)
        vs
        Start Button + "Phot" + Enter. (took me less than 3s and works in Windows 8 and 7 exactly the same.)

        If you click the "All programs button" on the start screen (Just like you have to press the "All programs" button in the start menu, you'll get taken to a full organized list of applications. And with the tweaks in 8.1 it'll be even more usable than the "well organized menu" since you can sort by how frequently you use your apps. You shouldn't be wasting a second of your time curating your start menu.

        And if you really were a power user you wouldn't have frequently used apps in your start menu, you would pin them to the taskbar like you've been able to do for over a decade. The fact that you're trying to use Windows 8 as if it was Windows 95 is your problem not Windows 8.

        • by steelfood (895457)

          Just a reminder: Most people don't use the "All Programs" list. They either use their desktop, on which you can hold tons more icons than large boxes, or type in their program and click the one that pops up.

          Metro can show fewer icons than the (95/NT4) desktop. It also has no visual indication that users can just start typing after hitting the start menu to find programs. As it is inferior to both 95/NT4 and 7, one can argue that Metro is a 30-year backward slide in interface design.

        • by Darinbob (1142669) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @06:41PM (#43909211)

          I find the start menu much more navigable than the start screen in Windows 8. Giant icons in metro is means less stuff up there available, so the first thing most people do is go to "all apps". Then you've got a 2 dimensional grid of smaller stuff. However that is less convenient in many ways; start menu is top to bottom, with vertical scrolling, but start screen is top to bottom and left to right with horizontal scrolling which is very disconcerting.

          Also by default start menu keeps things in sub-folders. Thus my newly installed game will have a folder all to itself, including the game, readme, and miscellaneous files. This keeps the menu list shorter, compared to the "all apps" on the start screen where everything is expanded by default so I'm scrolling (sideways) through many more elements than the start menu had.

          Also consider the awful icons you get in metro. A flat square with a smaller icon in the center of it, many of the icons which look exactly the same as others (ie, all document files are identical). So you are reading the text only here, the icons get ignored. This leaves a huge amount of space between each name in the start screen, which means you can't visually scan as easily through the squares list looking for the name you want. Start menu is compact; start screen is spread out with wasted spaced.

          When I use start menu it is for a couple reasons essentially: to find things that are seldom used or hard to find, or to find things that are used often but which can't have on-screen icons. For the former, the start screen does not speed up the searching and actually slows things down. For the latter, metro makes it difficult to find control panel or shutdown (without using undocumented shortcuts that the average user will not know).

          I don't use start menu in windows 8 because I don't have a replacement, so on occasion I do use start screen. I always find it very clumsy. I also find myself pinning more stuff to task bar than I used to, with more icons on the desktop than I used to. I hate that, I want a relatively clean desktop.

  • No problem here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by flnhst (2008724) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:14AM (#43903383)
    I have now worked with Windows 8 now since last october, and it is working just fine for me. I have had no problem getting around the new interface.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      My only gripe with W8 is the Metro interface is flat you can't have a tile for one application and then have all the tiles for it's other components underneath. Other than that it goes like stink. I believe the low sales have more to do with desktop/laptop sales plummeting.

      Go on troll away see if I care

    • Re:No problem here (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LordThyGod (1465887) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:33AM (#43903995)

      I have now worked with Windows 8 now since last october, and it is working just fine for me. I have had no problem getting around the new interface.

      You must be the target audience then. The rest of the planet, or most of us anyway, are not.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:14AM (#43903387)

    The suggestions involved are klunky and the idea of splitting it into 3 OSes is going the wrong way. Windows RT is a disaster because it lacks app compatibility. MS needs to retire it and fully embrace x86 now that intel has fixed it with Haswell.

    All that needs to be done to "fix" the start menu issue is make it so the task bar never goes away and the desktop background stays persistent but faded out. You click "START" and tada, the tiles appear right on top of your desktop. It is a simple solution, should be easy to present and works equally as well in mobile touchscreens as it does mice.

    • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki@co[ ]et ['x.n' in gap]> on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:26AM (#43903441)

      The problem with Windows RT was naming it Windows.

      Had they just called it RT, or Surface or Metro or something other than Windows, the app compatibility wouldn't be a problem. OSX application support or, out of the box anyway, X or Gtk support didn't harm Android or iOS. The whole thing supports the same CLR as Windows so...

      I think what's really hurting them is the insular nature of Microsoft. Spreadsheets aren't cool. Using Power Point in ads is more likely to turn off a user than turn one on.

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:30AM (#43903459)

      You're got to look at it from a business perspective. Microsoft is a 'traditional' software company: They make a product and sell it. They have no model for continuing to make money from their product post-sale, so they are highly dependent upon keeping customers continually upgrading. An increasingly difficult task - Windows XP remained popular for many years after MS intended it to die. Compare to Apple or Google: They don't just make products, but make an ecosystem around it - iTunes, , the app stores, tie-ins to other services, advertising. Every iPhone and Android device is a revenue stream to Apple or Google well after the initial sale.

      Microsoft wants to copy that. It's a great business idea. Not always good for end-users though - the factor that enables the ecosystem business model is device usage restrictions. Apple couldn't make money off the iPhones if people were able to install just anything from anywhere, without the App Store taking a cut.

      • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:27AM (#43903945)

        Apple couldn't make money off the iPhones if people were able to install just anything from anywhere, without the App Store taking a cut.

        Apple makes as much or more revenue off iPhone hardware sales ($22B) alone than all of MS according to their quarterly financials [apple.com]. While Apple makes money off of apps and content ($4B before they take their cut), it not as much as what they make on iOS hardware ($30B).

      • Except I really don't see what incentive Microsoft has to push people off old versions of Windows.

        After fall, most people don't buy "Windows". They buy computers, which happen to have Windows on them. This version of Windows usually is accompanied by a license that specifically states that the version of Windows that came with the computer is not - legally - transferable to another computer. And thanks to the lack of installation CDs and OEM locking , it is increasingly difficult for end users to take a ver

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        You're got to look at it from a business perspective. Microsoft is a 'traditional' software company: They make a product and sell it. They have no model for continuing to make money from their product post-sale, so they are highly dependent upon keeping customers continually upgrading. An increasingly difficult task - Windows XP remained popular for many years after MS intended it to die. Compare to Apple or Google: They don't just make products, but make an ecosystem around it - iTunes, , the app stores, t

    • The suggestions involved are klunky and the idea of splitting it into 3 OSes is going the wrong way. Windows RT is a disaster because it lacks app compatibility. MS needs to retire it and fully embrace x86 now that intel has fixed it with Haswell.

      I suspect that Intel hasn't 'fixed it' in a sense fully agreeable to Microsoft:

      When a PC sells, there are two main winners: Microsoft and Intel. Everybody else gets to make it up in volume. With desktops and larger laptops that doesn't vex Microsoft quite as much(since AMD anchors the low and some of the midrange and Apple is in the same boat as they are). If MS wants a bright, shiny, touch-whatever future, though, sharing the margins with the single vendor who can implement x86 sufficiently efficiently to

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      "Windows RT is a disaster because it lacks app compatibility."

      I'm curious about why people say that. The alternatives people are choosing over WinRT are iOS and Android, and neither of them have app compatibility with the desktop. People don't complain about them not having app compatibility, but they do complain about WinRT not having it. Is it an expectation problem?

      • by Junta (36770) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:22AM (#43903891)

        The issue is that WinRT has to offer *something* that IOS and Android do not in order to gain share.

        They didn't pursue lower price, their offerings are no less expensive than Apple.

        The didn't pursue better specs. They focused on Tegra 3, which is respectable but dated. Their screen resolution is downright atrocious compared to comparably priced products. While Android and IOS both have high ppi displays, MS has been left behind on this front.

        They don't have more apps. Android and IOS had to build their ecosystems from scratch, but they had early mover advantage. After letting that situation simmer for years, they release a product with a paltry number of apps despite having a legacy of the most application compatibilty of any platform. They don't even have app compatibility between their phone and winrt as it stands (though that wouldn't have helped *much*, it still is a sign that they made a mistake compared with the strategies of Apple and Android).

        Basically, every possible advantage that MS could have brought to market, they failed to do so. Like it or not, their best hope was/is to focus on x86 solutions where their application compatibilty can really come into its own.

    • The suggestions involved are klunky and the idea of splitting it into 3 OSes is going the wrong way.

      I'd agree that there's no point in splitting it into 3 different OSes, but I think a better solution is to have the Metro stuff be an optional installation (similar to the Media Center stuff) for desktop computers. The insistance on pushing touchscreen UI elements onto the desktop is a fundamental problem. You can reorganize the start menu and change the look, but having a full-screen menu that obscures your desktop and currently running applications causes a context shift which is needlessly disorienting

  • by mauriceh (3721)

    Please people, the "elephant in the room" is right in front of your face.

    • by foma84 (2079302)
      And sits right on the dept. name ;)
    • by Merk42 (1906718) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:50AM (#43903615)
      So in order to solve the issue of a completely different UI, you suggest installing Linux that has a completely different UI (and app incompatibility)?
    • by KiloByte (825081)

      The worst thing that happened is most distros falling into the Gnome3 trap just as Microsoft left a huge opportunity by making the same mistake with Metro.

    • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:18AM (#43903859)

      Suggesting Linux as an option to fix Windows is like proposing Esperanto to fix English.

      • Suggesting Linux as an option to fix Windows is like proposing the roman alphabet to a scribe-dominated, hieroglyphs-dependent Egypt. Insane at first, insane not to accept the proposal later. I only wish people stick to free software principles when transitioning, because e.g. with Android pay apps, many people are soon going to have the same problems people had with proprietary applications back in the 90s.

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:18AM (#43903407) Homepage Journal

    then microsoft isn't interested.
    the whole point is to get people to use metro apps. to pay for metro apps. to get a cut of metro apps sales.
    thus the push towards the metro ecosystem. supposedly it would also fix problems with some malware and so forth, but the real dollar bills would be from getting a cut from everything that is run on the pc. that is a huge pie. unsurprisingly traditional sw makers are asking why the fuck should they bow to that and are moving to subscription models partially as a backup against ms possibly being so stubborn as to force sw to be downloaded from their market sometime in the next 5 years or so.

    they could easily do that if metro apps would have started to gain a lot of traction, too bad people don't like metro enough.

    the simple fix would be to ship it with possibility to multitask metro apps and to run them in windows as default features, but then people might start asking why bother with metro apps at all. it's not like it's impossible to make touch friendly apps - with esentially the same api's - that aren't constrained to running inside metro vm.

    (written on a windows 8, it's so nice that it comes with a pdf reader. too bad you can only run the piece of shit fullscreen and view just one pdf at time! and the fuck does some fucking single player games need my windows account and facebook for? ??).

    • by RogueyWon (735973) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:39AM (#43903535) Journal

      The shift to a Metro UI was one of the big late-cycle mistakes that MS made with the Xbox 360 as well. The second-generation 360 UI which they used through the middle years of the cycle was about as good as anybody's managed on a console. For the final few months of its life, it actually worked really well with Kinnect's voice and gesture commands (which, sadly, couldn't be said for any games).

      By contrast, the third generation Metro UI was ugly, hard to browse with a controller and almost unusable with voice/gesture controls. It seemed to have been designed with just two purposes; maximising the percentage of the screen given over to adverts and serving as an early push for the whole "Metro" concept.

      Metro's ok for a tablet. Not great, but I've seen worse. For anything else - desktop, notebook or games console - it's dreadful.

      The whole thing has the stink of the kind of dumb idea that investor relations departments think up as something that can be pushed at less-than-intelligent shareholders. "Look, we may have missed the whole smartphones and tablets thing, but we've got a really great unified UI concept now that will let us take over the world! Honest!."

      It would only take a couple of those big institutional shareholders to get a clue and start asking a few pointed questions about the consumer-focussed parts of Microsoft to make life very, very uncomfortable for the company's management.

      But I can see no signs that's about to happen.

  • Bad OS or bad GUI? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gatkinso (15975) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:22AM (#43903417)

    If it is simply a shitty GUI on an improved kernel and stack then I will deal with it.

    What little Windows development I do is at least 50% command line anyway. My GUI apps simply are wrappers (and quite ugly thank you).

    • by 54mc (897170)

      If it is simply a shitty GUI on an improved kernel and stack then I will deal with it.

      Agreed!

      For powerusers, whom I would assume make up a large portion of /.'s audience, a GUI is something that can be replaced or skinned over but a crappy backend is forever

  • by fredrated (639554) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:29AM (#43903453) Journal

    how is it 10,000 Microsoft engineers and managers couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instructions were on the heal?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Because of the vision of the manager at the top of the pyramid
    • by swb (14022)

      Always my number one rhetorical question when I encounter something totally brain damaged in a Microsoft product -- "They hired the best and brightest they could find with almost no limits on salary or benefits and this is the result they got?"

      It kind of reminds me of the William F. Buckley quote -- " I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard Un

  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:33AM (#43903479)

    Between Windows 8 and trying to turn the Xbox into some sort of kludgy, half-assed DRM'ed TV tuner instead of a game console, I sometimes wonder wtf is going on in Redmond. Has Steve Balmer just checked out to lunch or something?

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      They've realised that the desktop as we know it is dead and are making a desperate effort to retool Windows into a tablet and smart-TV OS, while establishing the Xbox as their new hardware safe haven. They're not doing a great job, but the direction they're heading in is an unfortunate necessity. Customer PCs are on the way out. (Make your own "year of Linux on the desktop" joke, but Microsoft ceding the desktop market to the Unix-derivatives currently used for all Real Work would be great for things like d

    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:55AM (#43904215)
      Remember, Microsoft has always been reactionary rather than inventive. They wait to see where the market is going and then jump in, pretending to be the guys who invented. This worked well for years. Also, they have so much money that they can (unfortunately) afford to fail big and shrug it off. Vista was a disaster for sure, but it's just a historical footnote now. When you don't have to be right and have the money to just restart from the ground floor, you can gamble. So Windows 8 is the result of Microsoft incorrectly reading the marketplace, specifically in believing that nobody wants to buy PCs and that 100% of the world wants tablets and almost nobody on earth will ever buy or use a true PC again. Never in the past have they been held accountable and lost market share for being disastrously wrong, so I can't really fault them for expecting that to continue. I don't remember his name, but one tech writer wrote recently that Microsoft will continue to misread the market place and try to extract more and more revenue from the segments where in the past they had a stranglehold but are actually dying now (ie. Windows and Office). The Xbox thing is them being reactionary ("Kids use Tivo and we need to get us some of that money!") and trying to hold onto cash by making it unfriendly to play used games on. I don't claim to be a gamer or understand or know that market, so we'll see what happens. But their Windows and Office strategy is flawed because the push for more money out of Office is already driving people to cheaper alternatives and making Windows unfriendly to the businesses who need it to work reasonably well on true PCs is going to be a failure too.
  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:37AM (#43903515)

    Microsoft should hire Infoword's writers as design consultants. Inforworld's staff doesn't have the luxury of being out of touch with users.

    • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:45AM (#43903577)

      "Microsoft should hire Infoword's writers as design consultants. Inforworld's staff doesn't have the luxury of being out of touch with users."

      Judging by the fact that what was really just a simple article when it comes too was presented as some kind of faux-slideshow that randomly went white in the middle with a link return to slideshow (I assume my ad blocker half-killed a popup ad) I'd say they're perfectly well out of touch with users too.

    • by ericloewe (2129490) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @10:16AM (#43904401)

      Nope. As much as I agree with a lot of the Windows 8 hate, after experiencing it on my Samsung Ativ SmartPC Pro (which, by the way, is probably worse than the Surface Pro), those guys are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

      Instead of a simple "Allow us to stay exclusively within Metro or the Desktop" suggestion, they're advocating three seperate versions of Windows: One with only desktop, one with only metro, and a pseudo-version that makes you reboot if you want to switch from metro to desktop or vice-versa or if you want to use the touchscreen. They claim it's a minor issue, but it most certainly would not be - forcing a reboot is obviously not necessary (Nobody complains about Windows 8's oerformance) and it adds a non-trivial delay if you want to detach or reattach the keyboard and use Metro or Desktop, respectively.

      In essence, they have no freaking clue.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    InfoWorld reads like a woman's magazine you find at the checkout isles. Look today

    "Don't trust anonymous
    e-currencies like Bitcoin"

    "Let's be clear: Cloud computing
    will shrink the data center"

    "Batten down the hatches -- it's
    Microsoft reorg season"

    "The right way to manage BYOD"

    "Big Brother tech might be
    America's last hope for health"

    "Read me to learn how to suck a man"

  • by Anonymous Coward

    In "good design", motion is supposed to direct your eye to important interface elements.

    Panes or "Tetris Elements" or whatever they fucking call the distracting moving, flipping visual mess in Metro has been designed solely for distraction. Every task in Windows 8 takes longer amongst the worthless visual clutter begging for your attention. Why is this box jumping and drawing my eye? I don't know, it's not showing me anything new, and meanwhile I need to flip through another six pages of Tetris to find my b

  • Common Sense.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by houbou (1097327) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:50AM (#43903611) Journal
    From Win 7 to Win 8, the differences are simply too huge.
    We've been using a desktop PC for about 20 yrs and basically, the core Win OS hasn't changed all that much. Start Button, Control Panel, etc..
    I believe that as long as you have PCs operating with keyboard/mouse that you should be able to have the Win 7 experience. And then again, if possible, the Windows Classic experience without all the frills and thrills.
    Well, that's my opinion anyways. It would make sense and it wouldn't be rattling user's cages so to speak.
    Microsoft wants to get into the mobile world with their OS. Great, no problem, bring it on, but, maybe, they ought to make it a separate OS. It's going to be a while before a 'one solution' fits all approach will work when it comes to computing. For once, Microsoft should look at how Apple does it. It might LOOK all the same, but it isn't.
  • Doing it wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@ p ... r e trograde.com> on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @08:56AM (#43903651)

    Linux. BSD. Haiku. ALMOST ANY OTHER OS. you're damn proposal to make thing the way you like can actually be acted upon.

    The best way to "fix" windows, is to say "fuck it" and not use the shit.

  • by OvidNaso (2660721) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:05AM (#43903731)
    It links you in the third paragraph to "20 things you will love about Windows 8." Number 9 is the "Charms bar." On page 3 they suggest "The Charms bar is eliminated".
  • Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tgd (2822) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:26AM (#43903927)

    Windows 8 is selling extremely well.

    New PCs are what isn't selling, and that has nothing to do with Windows 8, no matter what the Slashdrones like to believe. That has to do with Moore's Law finally outpacing the needs of software, the change to near universal consumption on computers.

    Hardware vendors need to make upgrading hardware compelling. Microsoft can't do that -- they're selling plenty of upgrades, as it is.

  • by bazorg (911295) on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @09:54AM (#43904209) Homepage

    It's probably a good thing that we can all see this matter differently. The guys at Inforworld seem to want a very clear distinction between how a Desktop PC works and how "other devices" work, even imagining a hybrid operating system UI for the devices that today are not exactly desktops and are not exactly tablets.
    This idea shows up on /. A few days after we saw multiple hybrid products and prototypes at Computex, many of them using Windows 8 on machines with varied configurations. Would the people at Infoworld adjust their OS everytime someone comes up with a valid hardware prototype? Or would they react to wherever the OEMs are doing and adjust Windows whenever some new OEM design becomes successful enough? In either case, they are not acknowledging that Microsoft has and wants to have a say in how their product is used.

    It seems the people at Infoworld gathered the common gripes and made a mock-up of how things could stay the same as much as possible, disregarding any aspirations that MS may have to develop their products towards what will sell in the future.
    By extending the idea of Personal Computer to include smartphones and tablets, within 10 years we will be looking at a PC market with a majority of devices without any MS product, unless Microsoft seriously increases sales of Windows Phone and Surface. It looks like people at Infoworld haven't noticed that these products do not have and do not need to show any familiarity with the old desktop and icons UI.

    Windows blue is looking like a a gradual change to what feedback MS got from Windows 8, without detracting from those objectives of helping them get a stronger position on the tablet/mobile market. This Windows red mock-up would be 10 steps backwards on that route, leaving Windows in an shrinking island of "desktop" users, without a clear route for linking them with other devices, which is possibly the best thing about Windows 8.0

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Working...