# Yet another Windows 8 / Metro argument



## spinal_cord (Apr 6, 2013)

Looking at windows 8, it seems that microsoft has taken a step backwards from windows 3.1 down to windows 1.x







I do sometimes boot up win 3.1 on my ipad though


----------



## Pleng (Apr 15, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Looking at windows 8, it seems that microsoft has taken a step backwards from windows 3.1 down to windows 1.x


 
Cool. Windows 8 debate!

Well things do tend to go around in circles. We improve things and improve things and improve things until they're finally running pretty much the way they used to anyway - only by the time it's come around, technology has makes the original way of doing things make a lot more sense.

The desktop paradigm was a horrendously flawed one to begin with - let's take the messiest part of any office and use it to base our computer operating environment on - let users stack windows on top of each other, loose them behind a whole myriad of other windows and waste countless minutes trying to find what it is they actually want to do.

Full screen apps make a lot more sense. Especially if there's an easy way to flip between them (I haven't spent much time with Windows 8 so I don't know if they've got this bit right). If there's a cause to view two things side by side, then the app needs to provide this functionality - who in their right mind would run two instances of notepad++, when it incorporates a much better side-by-side view. And can you really argue that having folders open all over the screen and dragging and dropping is a more productive way of working that the classic file commanders? We now have the concept of apps interacting with each other, which makes a lot of sense. Previously a programmer could rely on 3rd party libraries to take the pain out of implementing features, now they can go one step further and rely on whole other apps to do the work for them.


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 19, 2013)

Pleng said:


> Full screen apps make a lot more sense. Especially if there's an easy way to flip between them (I haven't spent much time with Windows 8 so I don't know if they've got this bit right). If there's a cause to view two things side by side, then the app needs to provide this functionality


 
What? surely you joke?

What do you then do if say, you need to view two entirely different types of document side-by-side? Like say, a video and a notepad for example? Would you seriously expect the video player to have notepad functionality, or the notepad to have video playing functionality? No.


----------



## Count Duckula (Apr 19, 2013)

MS Office loads to the traditional desktop GUI on Win RT devices, despite no 3rd party apps being allowed that luxury. Why? They realised that a tablet GUI paradigm is a massive hinderance to productivity when theres real work to be done. Tablet and phone GUIs are simplified to meet the limitations of those devices, microsoft has shoehorned it into their desktop OS simply so they can say they have a 'unified interface' regardless of its usefulness.

For basic tasks some may prefer metro on a desktop, for getting actual work done it has no place there.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 19, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Looking at windows 8, it seems that microsoft has taken a step backwards from windows 3.1 down to windows 1.x
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And so once again, we have ANOTHER invalid argument for Windows 8. 

Its called Desktop, and it seems almost everyone whos too busy to get off the Win8 hate wagon has yet to notice its sort of the basis of Windows 8. Metro UI was just put in to give users some familiarity and make acess to certain programs much faster and simpler.


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 19, 2013)

Win 2k
Best windows version ever made.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> And so once again, we have ANOTHER invalid argument for Windows 8.
> 
> Its called Desktop, and it seems almost everyone whos too busy to get off the Win8 hate wagon has yet to notice its sort of the basis of Windows 8. Metro UI was just put in to give users some familiarity and make acess to certain programs much faster and simpler.


I don't see how it being the base is invalid.  In fact, that graphical style being adopted into other programs is even worse than just the desktop using it.

From a design standpoint, Windows 8's Metro is a trend that I'm sure will die out soon because it's confusing to users.  Even Microwaves and Ovens bother to put divisions and markers so users know what is and is not an interactable object (button, link, etc.) but Metro doesn't, which is just confusing to end-users.

I can agree with simplifying the style of things in order to reduce visual clutter and make actions clear, but by removing markers for different types of interaction, it's going a step backwards from the original goal.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 20, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I don't see how it being the base is invalid.  In fact, that graphical style being adopted into other programs is even worse than just the desktop using it.
> 
> From a design standpoint, Windows 8's Metro is a trend that I'm sure will die out soon because it's confusing to users.  Even Microwaves and Ovens bother to put divisions and markers so users know what is and is not an interactable object (button, link, etc.) but Metro doesn't, which is just confusing to end-users.
> 
> I can agree with simplifying the style of things in order to reduce visual clutter and make actions clear, but by removing markers for different types of interaction, it's going a step backwards from the original goal.



Im by no means saying the Metro was a GOOD choice, im saying that any complaints about the Metro are invaild because everything can be done from the desktop. Think of the Metro for what its always been, a full screen start menu.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 20, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> What? surely you joke?
> 
> What do you then do if say, you need to view two entirely different types of document side-by-side? Like say, a video and a notepad for example? Would you seriously expect the video player to have notepad functionality, or the notepad to have video playing functionality? No.


 
In a productive environment when would you ever NEED to view a video and a notepad at the same time?


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

Pleng said:


> In a productive environment when would you ever NEED to view a video and a notepad at the same time?



Writing down notes of a paused frame as you examine it.
Marking approximate times to go back and re-examine for defects or points of interest while you watch it.
Viewing notes and corrections.

Stuff like that.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 20, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Writing down notes of a paused frame as you examine it.
> Marking approximate times to go back and re-examine for defects or points of interest while you watch it.
> Viewing notes and corrections.
> Stuff like that.


 
All good and valid points. So... presuming there's no app designed around for taking notes against videos (hmm I sniff a gap in the market if I can ever get my *** in gear) then how much of a hardship is it to have the video playing full screen. Pause and switch to a fullscreen notepad, then switching back to the fullscreen video? Well... the way Windows 8 currently deals with task switching... it *is* a hardship, but that's a flaw in Microsoft's implementation of full screen apps, not in concept itself.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

Well if you want to read while the video is going... it'd be pretty fucking annoying to be hitting Alt+Tab and Space 20 times a minute.


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 20, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Im by no means saying the Metro was a GOOD choice, im saying that any complaints about the Metro are invaild because everything can be done from the desktop. Think of the Metro for what its always been, a full screen start menu.


 
Diin't I read somewhere than Microsoft had removed the ability to use the desktop by default when loading windows? If that's true, it is being relegated to the position of a third party application. If I am not allowed to load 'desktop', the explorer that I have familiarised myself with over the last 20 years, the I see no point in the metro 'feature'.Imho Windows 8 should be the other way around, with the regular desktop as default and the tiles as a secondary app layout.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 20, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Diin't I read somewhere than Microsoft had removed the ability to use the desktop by default when loading windows?
> 
> *No... they just made the Start Screen overlay it. You can just click the Desktop tile or hold Win key + D and it opens fine.*
> 
> ...


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 20, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Diin't I read somewhere than Microsoft had removed the ability to use the desktop by default when loading windows? If that's true, it is being relegated to the position of a third party application. If I am not allowed to load 'desktop', the explorer that I have familiarised myself with over the last 20 years, the I see no point in the metro 'feature'.Imho Windows 8 should be the other way around, with the regular desktop as default and the tiles as a secondary app layout.


 
It seems as though you are criticizing the OS without actually using it, as your opinion is based on what you have read as opposed to what you have experienced. Otherwise, you would not believe some of the statements you have made.

In regards to two of the points you made:

1. You _can_ have two apps open at once in metro, and you_ can_ snap one to one side of the screen while you have one in the other. It's great for taking notes while watching a movie, and all apps must support both fullscreen and snapped mode in a user friendly manner. It's quite nice.
2. You cannot boot directly to the desktop. However, what do you do when you boot to the desktop? You immediately click "Start" and then launch a program. Launching to the metro interface is just removing the step of clicking on the "Start" button.

While I will admit that it is a valid point to say that you dislike the new Windows because it is different and therefore takes some getting used to compared to what you used in the past, I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. I also wouldn't say it makes it inherently worse. Technology changes and adapts. If it didn't, we would still be using the same type of computing devices this thread is supposed to be dedicated to.

I use Windows 8 on my non-touchscreen workstation. I find that after a period of getting used to it and learning how to use it, I am able to be much more productive and have a much more enjoyable experience than I did on Windows 7. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. All of the GUI uses GPU acceleration by default. It makes it so the interface is silky smooth. Using any other operating system feels really choppy to me now, because most still rely on the CPU to render the 2D elements.
2. Much, much, much faster boot times.
3. Longer battery life (because of the simplified interface and more efficient rendering [point 1])
4. It forced me to learn shortcut keys. I can now fly all around super quickly without ever having to reach for the mouse. It's fantastic.
5. I can sync all of my information and applications across multiple computers seamlessly (I have... let's see... 7 at my house).

The new Office is also very nice.

Windows is also extremely configurable. You can set it so that everything launches in desktop mode by default if you are using your PC for productivity instead of entertainment.

I hope that helps anyone who is confused by the new OS or has yet to try it for themselves to approach it with an open mind.


----------



## Jamstruth (Apr 20, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Diin't I read somewhere than Microsoft had removed the ability to use the desktop by default when loading windows? If that's true, it is being relegated to the position of a third party application. If I am not allowed to load 'desktop', the explorer that I have familiarised myself with over the last 20 years, the I see no point in the metro 'feature'.Imho Windows 8 should be the other way around, with the regular desktop as default and the tiles as a secondary app layout.


Yes they made the Metro interface load first. I quite like the Start Screen now I'm used to it though and most of the time just click my Firefox shortcut to launch the desktop.

In Windows 8.1 (free upgrade coming this year) they're adding this option back in along with a bunch of other stuff (improved dual screen Metro for instance). I'm not telling you to upgrade but Win8 is really not as bad as I and many others originally made it out to be.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> 2. You cannot boot directly to the desktop. However, what do you do when you boot to the desktop? You immediately click "Start" and then launch a program. Launching to the metro interface is just removing the step of clicking on the "Start" button.


Am I the only person who uses icons on the desktop anymore?



PityOnU said:


> 1. All of the GUI uses GPU acceleration by default. It makes it so the interface is silky smooth. Using any other operating system feels really choppy to me now, because most still rely on the CPU to render the 2D elements.


That's what AERO does, starting with Vista... accelerates the whole screen (unless a really old program starts up and kicks you back to classic).  Most people didn't notice at the time, however, as most companies were still selling pieces of shit and calling them computers (mainly in regards to old integrated Intel GPUs).  Remember that a lot of machines sold when this first became a thing couldn't even turn AERO on because they were too weak to accelerate the whole screen, and/or were built only up to API standards of like, 4 years beforehand.  Fire up any Vista or 7 machine with AERO on, and with FRAPS and it's DWM option, you can actually record the full screen because it's using the GPU to composite and display.

Anyways, just noting that while 8 improved on the thing (likely by killing off older support that was slowing it down), GPU-accelerated stuff didn't just come out with 8.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 20, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Am I the only person who uses icons on the desktop anymore?


I still do! 
I don't know why I would want to go to the start menu to launch a program, unless I hardly ever use that program. For programs I do use, I would rather them be on my desktop.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

I use the start menu's program search ability all the time.  Tap the SUPER key, type in a few letter, hit enter.


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 20, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Am I the only person who uses icons on the desktop anymore?


 
Unfortunately, no. But if this is the case, you must feel right at home in the metro start screen!



Rydian said:


> I use the start menu's program search ability all the time. Tap the SUPER key, type in a few letter, hit enter.


 
Then why the desktop icons?



Rydian said:


> That's what AERO does, starting with Vista... accelerates the whole screen (unless a really old program starts up and kicks you back to classic). Most people didn't notice at the time, however, as most companies were still selling pieces of shit and calling them computers (mainly in regards to old integrated Intel GPUs). Remember that a lot of machines sold when this first became a thing couldn't even turn AERO on because they were too weak to accelerate the whole screen, and/or were built only up to API standards of like, 4 years beforehand. Fire up any Vista or 7 machine with AERO on, and with FRAPS and it's DWM option, you can actually record the full screen because it's using the GPU to composite and display.
> 
> Anyways, just noting that while 8 improved on the thing (likely by killing off older support that was slowing it down), GPU-accelerated stuff didn't just come out with 8.


 
While I am not familiar enough with Windows Vista or 7 to comment on what is or isn't hardware accelerated in the GUI, I can definitely assure you that not all of it is. Specifically, rendering the text and the images is not. To see what I mean, try opening a large image in some of the default apps, or scrolling through a very text- and image-heavy document in Office 2010. The guys at Microsoft explain it better than I, though: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...celerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx

In regards to Aero, I would hazard that being able to turn it on and off was more to conserve memory that processing power (it eats on the order of 100MB of RAM).


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> Unfortunately, no. But if this is the case, you must feel right at home in the metro start screen!


I'm divided about it, since I don't have as much freedom to move and group things as I used to.  Specifically shoving things into corners, they still like to stand out.



PityOnU said:


> Then why the desktop icons?









Desktop icons are things I use on an everyday (or nearly every day) basis, the start menu's search function is for _everything else_.  Any Video Converter?  "Any" and hit enter.  Audacity?  "Au", enter.  IcoFX, Speccy, Stepmania, etc.

When I move to 8 or above I'll likely just need a new shortcut key for it.



PityOnU said:


> While I am not familiar enough with Windows Vista or 7 to comment on what is or isn't hardware accelerated in the GUI, I can definitely assure you that not all of it is. Specifically, rendering the text and the images is not. To see what I mean, try opening a large image in some of the default apps, or scrolling through a very text- and image-heavy document in Office 2010. The guys at Microsoft explain it better than I, though: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...celerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx


DirectWrite came out with 7, and an update gave it to Vista too, but I'm glad to see they focused on improving the APIs most commonly-used now.



PityOnU said:


> In regards to Aero, I would hazard that being able to turn it on and off was more to conserve memory that processing power (it eats on the order of 100MB of RAM).


No, turning it off was used if the GPU was shitty, or if an old program that doesn't support compositing (like BGB, the emulator) needs to run.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 21, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Desktop icons are things I use on an everyday (or nearly every day) basis, the start menu's search function is for _everything else_. Any Video Converter? "Any" and hit enter. Audacity? "Au", enter. IcoFX, Speccy, Stepmania, etc.


 
You can pin anything you use frequently as a tile on the windows metro start page. So press start - click on something you use often, or start typing to get to something you use left often.


----------



## Arm73 (Apr 21, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Am I the only person who uses icons on the desktop anymore?


 
No sir, I use icons too.
In fact, I have them all nicely alined and  sorted by type ( games, apps, utility ) and I rarely, ever use the start button in Windows 7.

That's why I don't understand why so many people are frigging crying over the absence of the start menu in Windows 8 !
Honestly, there are plenty of shortcuts and if you type something ( just anything, no win+key combination ) in metro like the first 3 letters of Notepad for example, Windows 8 searches for every possible match in settings, applications, documents etc...  and it's mighty efficient at that.

Windows 8 is not perfect by all means, but now that I got used to it, I'm really enjoying it ( for other valid points made by PityOnU ).
On my system I have both 7 and 8 in dual boot.
Over the months, I find myself booting into 8 much more often then 7, to the point that today I keep the Windows 7 partition ONLY in case something doesn't run well in 8 ( never happened so far ) or in case my main OS gets screwed up and I need something to fall back to( you know with all the torrents and stuff I get from the internet these days  ).

What I don't understand, is why everybody is crying over the missing Start button when clearly the best feature of it was the power down button ( which I replaced with a shortcut on my desktop and an icon in metro ).

I love to check my multiple mails and the weather in Windows 8 UI, when I'm done I just click on the Firefox icon and life continues smoothly as usual in our good old desktop environment.

I hate whiners.
Deal with it.
(Not exactly my words, just a citation ).


----------



## Rydian (Apr 21, 2013)

My complaint isn't specifically about the start menu as I rarely actually click it.  My main complaint is how the Metro design in general is a step back from... everything.


----------



## raulpica (Apr 21, 2013)

_This thread was split from the "Windows 3.1" thread._


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 21, 2013)

You know if you ask me the main problem with Windows 8 isnt the OS itself, its fine. Honestly all you have to do is maybe a quick tweak for a Start Menu and your done. The problem with Windows 8 is people who seem to think after looking at a quick FAQ or listening to what communities say about it, and assume they know everything about it. Even worse are those who try it for a week and assume they too also know everything about it. Its not difficult, its not slow, its not clunky and it doesnt lock you into a tablet interface. All it does is put it there and give you the legacy desktop. Thats all. Everything else is only better from Win7, Task Manger is much more detailed, Accounts feel more personalized, certain things people often use computers for (like Netflix) become much easier to access and use with an actual dedicated app. 

All Mircosoft did was make the Start Menu full-screen. Thats it.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm not that big a fan of Windows 8, I gave it a try, but it wasn't my thing.
Then again I am rather bias when it comes down Windows and never really cared for anything past XP.


----------



## Kwartel (Apr 21, 2013)

I can't imagine getting back to Windows 7. The new start menu (which Modern UI just is) is so much better than the previous start menu. It needs some polishing, but that will come in 8.1. It's just nice that you have a better overview of your search entries with it being fullscreen. It's also easier to organise your shortcuts if you have a bunch of programs you only use occasionally. I have everything I use daily pinned on my taskbar and everything else ready for use on my ModernUI. Seriously, once you get used to it, it's so much better than that stupid small startmenu.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 21, 2013)

The only thing I really dont like about Metro is it doesnt feel very customizable. I would like to change how my tiles are colored and what scheme they should revolve around, but other then that, I use Start Menu for anything that my desktop doesnt have.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 21, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> The only thing I really dont like about Metro is it doesnt feel very customizable. I would like to change how my tiles are colored and what scheme they should revolve around, but other then that, I use Start Menu for anything that my desktop doesnt have.


That'll likely come in the future, either in a platform update or Windows 9.

I say this based off of XP's uxtheme.dll design issues.


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 22, 2013)

Well, I had another play about with Win8 and still hate it. The start menu was introduced for convenience, it's something I really miss when using my Mac, that and the taskbar/system tray. Both things seem to be missing (by default) in Win8. Yes I know, I can ckick the 'desktop' tile, but I shouldn't need to. Win8 is clearly not designed with desktop users in mind, I can see very well how much better it would be an a tablet, but trying to use it on a desktop, having mouse movement on a trackpad constantly mistaken for touch gestures is a little more than irritating. Sure, full screen only apps on a tablet, fine, on a desktop, not in a million years. When I'm using multiple applications (especially on a large screen) I tend to have many windows spread out all over, with a section of each clearly visible at all times, so I can just click on of those sections to bring that window forward. Yet again, usability option removed. Me and those of my friends that have been forced to use Win8, are sad to see Win7 removed from the market place and hope that like Vista, Me and other such versions of Windows, Win8 is replaced in a hurry, especially for desktop use.


----------



## Arm73 (Apr 22, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> ............ Me and those of my friends that have been forced to use Win8, are sad to see Win7 removed from the market place and hope that like Vista, Me and other such versions of Windows, Win8 is replaced in a hurry, especially for desktop use.


 
Wow.....replaced in a hurry ?
How about a little update that gives you the option to boot to desktop instead, would that put you and your friends out of your misery ?

Like I said, once in desktop mode you cannot possibly miss windows 7, as it's all there and improved.
Is the absence of the start menu really such a big deal ?
Don't you have shortcuts on your desktop for your application and games like the rest of us ?


----------



## sentinel5000 (Apr 22, 2013)

This is actually pretty easy to solve, just go get Stardock's Start8 and ModernMix and your problems are solved. Make Windows 8 more like Windows 7 and make those full screen apps run inside windows  .


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 22, 2013)

I am continually surprised that no one ever actually has valid reasons why Windows 8 is worse than previous iterations of the operating system. They are generally a) mis- or under-informed or b) simply hateful towards it because it is different.

I an attempt to not be labeled a "Microsoft fanboy," here are some genuine issues with the new OS that can be seen as a step down from Windows 7, or just generally problematic:

1. Although you can set the OS to use desktop mode exclusively (yes, you can!), you can't disable the charms bar on the right hand side of the screen. This is problematic if you go to use the scrollbar or the close button in traditional applications. It always pops up!
2. GPU acceleration of the entire OS is fantastic, but you sure better hope your graphics card/chipset has good drivers. They made a lot of improvements to graphics drivers and recovery from failures this time around, but the thing will still lock up if your drivers aren't water tight.
3. You can no longer use 64-bit IE. Sure, you can launch the 64-bit executable, but it only acts as a wrapper for the 32-bit version. Until very recently, the 32-bit version of Flash that is bundle with IE would crash if I had more than say 4 videos open at once.
4. It's more difficult to manually launch the "Optional Updates" control panel applet. I manually install updates, and in Windows 7 I could just search "update" and it would be first on the list. In Windows 8, I have to search and then click the "Settings" category to find it.
5. There was no intro-video/tour of how to use the new OS/desktop mode. This would definitely confuse a lot of people. Even Android has the little helper overlays pop up the first time you use it. For example, if you mash your cursor into the bottom left side of the desktop and click, "Oh hey, that's the start button now! It's still there, it's just invisible!"


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 22, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Well, I had another play about with Win8 and still hate it. The start menu was introduced for convenience, it's something I really miss when using my Mac, that and the taskbar/system tray. Both things seem to be missing (by default) in Win8. Yes I know, I can ckick the 'desktop' tile, but I shouldn't need to.
> 
> *Then download a fucking program that boots it directly to desktop.  Are you going to say Windows is broken because Internet Explorer is shit, or are you going to download a better web browser?*
> 
> ...



Once again I say it, sit down, and actually take time to learn how the operating system works before you haul off saying it doesnt work. Dont try it for a week, dont try it for two weeks, sit down and dedicate yourself to using it for a month and actually learn shit about using it. Every single thing you've complained about is already solved in the OS, if you dont want to learn how to ride a bike, dont go and return it to the store saying its broken.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 22, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> 2. GPU acceleration of the entire OS is fantastic, but you sure better hope your graphics card/chipset has good drivers. They made a lot of improvements to graphics drivers and recovery from failures this time around, but the thing will still lock up if your drivers aren't water tight.


Opposed to XP and below, where a driver crash would cause a BSoD, I think the NT 6 method of unloading the driver is better.  Yet, it kills whatever is using hardware acceleration at the moment and needs to reload explorer, but that's better than the whole computer, 'ya know?


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 22, 2013)

im sure all 10 users that own windows tablets and phones are very appreciative


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 22, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> im sure all 10 users that own windows tablets and phones are very appreciative



Im going to guess you were responding to me. 

I didnt mention _windows_ tablets and phones were the only things. Its a scrolling, non-page based simple interface with large extremely descriptive icons and is quite colorful. Do you remember what Windows mobile was advertised around? Being simple, quick and easy to access, it was supposed to be the kind of phone you glance at and get all the information you need. You dont have to had used a Windows device before to open up desktop or Windows Store or listen to music on Windows 8, just touch the title you want. My 7 year old niece was able to pick up on using my laptop faster then my desktop just because of the Metro interface, seeing how the adverage household has maybe two computers at max that the family shares, making your computer operate more like a tablet could be one of the most adaptive moves mircosoft has ever made.


----------



## Arm73 (Apr 22, 2013)

Besides, the start menu is still there, you can't see it but it's actually better then ever.
Somebody should come up with a painted orb in the lower left corner so people would stop bitching about the missing start menu.

Yeah, I little orb  just like on 7 that brings you to windows 8 start screen ( instead of just clicking in the corner ).
It would look different, but hey, nobody will complain about it anymore !
That, and a setting to boot directly to desktop or whatever you were when you shot it off, two ridiculously little things that would shot up a lot of people IMO.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Apr 22, 2013)

I like W8.
Its faster than 7 but most of my games doesn't work on it, that's why i changed back to 7.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> I like W8.
> Its faster than 7 but most of my games doesn't work on it, that's why i changed back to 7.



But, Win 8 just builds upon Win 7... how could your games not work? Which are they?


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> But, Win 8 just builds upon Win 7... how could your games not work? Which are they?


 
Digimon Masters and Aion.
I got BSOD when loading Digimon and couldn't run Aion on x64 bit


----------



## Rydian (Apr 23, 2013)

A BSOD is not a usermode-software issue, it's some driver or system-level issue.  Likely something in the OS needed to be removed/fixed/updated.

Unless this is a game that uses system-level DRM, like starforce and junk.  That stuff can cause all sorts of problems.


----------



## Arm73 (Apr 23, 2013)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> I like W8.
> Its faster than 7 but most of my games doesn't work on it, that's why i changed back to 7.


Ever heard of dual boot ?
That's what I'm basically doing with every new Windows release, I create a second partition and put the new OS there and keep the old one 'just in case '.
But I tell you, once I started to install new games on Windows 8 over the months, I have little to no reason to go back to 7, as opposed to before when I used mostly 7 and occasionally checked out 8.
Everything just works.
But I guess it's good to keep the old one in case something goes wrong.


----------



## FireGrey (Apr 23, 2013)

I really don't see the negative attitude towards windows 8.
The Metro Interface is simply a better, full screen start menu and the Metro 'apps' are just windows ran in full screen that are easier to manage than other full screen programs.
There is nothing pushing into your face to be running all your programs like Chrome in Metro so I don't see why the fact that there are convenient full screen apps available to you would make the OS suck.


----------



## FireGrey (Apr 23, 2013)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> I like W8.
> Its faster than 7 but most of my games doesn't work on it, that's why i changed back to 7.


I thought that compatibility was almost exactly the same as previous operating systems other than driver support.
Definitely applies to steam games.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> I thought that compatibility was almost exactly the same as previous operating systems other than driver support.
> Definitely applies to steam games.



Thats what im wondering too, I personally run a few rougelikes that werent even designed for Windows (I recompiled 2 of them) and they all run even better then Win 7.

Maybe he took a fresh install and forgot to install the new drivers?


----------



## Skelletonike (Apr 23, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> What? surely you joke?
> 
> What do you then do if say, you need to view two entirely different types of document side-by-side? Like say, a video and a notepad for example? Would you seriously expect the video player to have notepad functionality, or the notepad to have video playing functionality? No.


Actually, you can do that on Windows 8, even when using the metro... All you have to do is draw windows and you can be reading a pdf while watching a movie for example.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Apr 23, 2013)

Arm73 said:


> Ever heard of dual boot ?
> That's what I'm basically doing with every new Windows release, I create a second partition and put the new OS there and keep the old one 'just in case '.
> But I tell you, once I started to install new games on Windows 8 over the months, I have little to no reason to go back to 7, as opposed to before when I used mostly 7 and occasionally checked out 8.
> Everything just works.
> But I guess it's good to keep the old one in case something goes wrong.


 
No i didn't cause my HDD is 80 GB...
Cba to install it again nor i know if DMO works now or not.
And W8 is 20 GB+ , first i need to get a bigger HDD.


----------



## Devin (Apr 23, 2013)

I liked windows 8 for the most part. Just the software compatibility and the lack of drivers for my devices were my turn offs. Skype worked for a bit then failed. (That windows 8 Skype blows.) Some of my drivers just didn't work. As mentioned before some games failed to. Load.

But it looked nice and worked for the most part.


----------



## dilav (Apr 23, 2013)

Devin said:


> Skype worked for a bit then failed. (That windows 8 Skype blows.)


 
Skype for 'Windows Desktop' still exists. Even though skype webpage directs you to Skype for 'Windows 8' app
http://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-computer/


----------



## EMP Knightmare (Apr 23, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I'm not that big a fan of Windows 8, I gave it a try, but it wasn't my thing.
> Then again I am rather bias when it comes down Windows and never really cared for anything past XP.


 
Marry me


----------



## Devin (Apr 23, 2013)

dilav said:


> Skype for 'Windows Desktop' still exists. Even though skype webpage directs you to Skype for 'Windows 8' app
> http://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-computer/


 
Yeah that's the one that failed, just wanted to add on that I tried the Windows 8 Skype app and it was terrible.


----------



## Haloman800 (Apr 23, 2013)

Getting rid of the Start Menu was one of the dumbest moves Microsoft has ever done. They execs and Windows programmers actually got in a fight over adding it back in Windows 8.1 (Which is an update coming). You can see the demand for it by all the Start menu replacements (Start8, StartIsBack, ClassicShell, etc).

Windows 8 might be good for a tablet interface, but it is horrible for a desktop/laptop setup.. It convolutes everything and makes simple tasks much harder, half the users couldn't even figure out how to turn it off without looking it up online.

Windows 8 is a failure, and that won't change even if they add back the Start menu. You can't change first impressions, which is why Vista is regarded as a failure (Even though service pack 1 fixed most of the problems).


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> *You can run two apps side by side and change easily switch these apps with a click and flick. *


 

How about you read my complaint before giving the wrong answer. I have been using Windows from version 3.x, one of the most useful things, it to have MANY windows and applications open and visible, NOT ONLY TWO.

[quote="Haloman800, post: 4620626, member: 235972"Windows 8 might be good for a tablet interface, but it is horrible for a desktop/laptop setup.. It convolutes everything and makes simple tasks much harder...[/quote]

Agreed.


----------



## Engert (Apr 23, 2013)

uuuuuh, i'm saving this for tomorrow.
Short version (TLDR) : Windows 8 sucks monkey balls because it has no start menu, and they're trying to copy Apple and all of you who think it's cool are just gay.

http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-win...-the-start-button-boot-to-desktop-7000014075/


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm just gonna leave this here.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Once again I say it, sit down, and actually take time to learn how the operating system works before you haul off saying it doesnt work. Dont try it for a week, dont try it for two weeks, sit down and dedicate yourself to using it for a month and actually learn shit about using it. Every single thing you've complained about is already solved in the OS, if you dont want to learn how to ride a bike, dont go and return it to the store saying its broken.


 
I have and it is a royal pain in the ass.  Typing using an on screen keyboard for any length of time is quite painful and having to buy a few more monitors to work around the whole "only full screen apps" thing is out of my budget.  Not to mention having to set up a POP3 to IMAP proxy because the Mail software only supports IMAP or Exchange.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Im by no means saying the Metro was a GOOD choice, im saying that any complaints about the Metro are invaild because everything can be done from the desktop. Think of the Metro for what its always been, a full screen start menu.


 
What part of you *aren't supposed to use the desktop because it is depreciated and for legacy software only* don't you get?  In the version of Windows after Blue the desktop will be gone completely and will only exist as a modified copy of Windows 7/8 running in VM software with no 3D acceleration (and thus no CUDA/DXVA support either).


----------



## Rydian (Apr 23, 2013)

nl255 said:


> What part of you *aren't supposed to use the desktop because it is depreciated and for legacy software only* don't you get?  In the version of Windows after Blue the desktop will be gone completely and will only exist as a modified copy of Windows 7/8 running in VM software with no 3D acceleration (and thus no CUDA/DXVA support either).


[Citation Needed]


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

Pleng said:


> All good and valid points. So... presuming there's no app designed around for taking notes against videos (hmm I sniff a gap in the market if I can ever get my *** in gear) then how much of a hardship is it to have the video playing full screen. Pause and switch to a fullscreen notepad, then switching back to the fullscreen video? Well... the way Windows 8 currently deals with task switching... it *is* a hardship, but that's a flaw in Microsoft's implementation of full screen apps, not in concept itself.


 
Or just you know, use a pencil and paper until someone gets around to making such a video app. I think it is much more of a pain in the ass to have to set up a Linux server to act as a POP3 to IMAP proxy because Mail doesn't support POP3 any more. Oh, and my Windows 8 system is touchscreen, voice, and Metro only as the desktop is completely disabled.  Hint:  Windows 8 Embedded lets you remove/disable pretty much anything you want.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

Rydian said:


> [Citation Needed]


 
Ask Microsoft or just look at their marketing materials as to how keyboards/mice are obsolete and touch/voice is the future.  Or why don't you ask Valve who are porting Steam and all their games to Linux because they don't believe that Windows as a traditional desktop OS will be around much longer.  Yes, they specifically ported Steam and the Source engine to Linux because they realize that newer APIs like DirectX 13 will be Metro/Modern only and that desktop mode will eventually go the way of the dodo in favor of the locked down Metro/Modern system that only allows you to run software from the Windows Store.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

nl255 said:


> What part of you *aren't supposed to use the desktop because it is depreciated and for legacy software only* don't you get?  In the version of Windows after Blue the desktop will be gone completely and will only exist as a modified copy of Windows 7/8 running in VM software with no 3D acceleration (and thus no CUDA/DXVA support either).



What the hell says its legacy software? If you arent supposed to use the desktop why would they ADD features in not only 8 but also Blue? How about you cite some goddamn sources.



nl255 said:


> I have and it is a royal pain in the ass.  Typing using an on screen keyboard for any length of time is quite painful and having to buy a few more monitors to work around the whole "only full screen apps" thing is out of my budget.  Not to mention having to set up a POP3 to IMAP proxy because the Mail software only supports IMAP or Exchange.



On-screen keyboard?! WHAT!? ANY version of windows you use the on-screen is a pain in the ass. What are you using that RT shit on Surface? THAT sucks. Nothings wrong with x86 Win 8 though.


EDIT: Just read your other posts, let this be flat-out known. Windows RT/Mobile fucking sucks. This topic doesnt pertain to it otherwise we would be saying Android is better rather then Windows 7.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> How about you read my complaint before giving the wrong answer. I have been using Windows from version 3.x, one of the most useful things, it to have MANY windows and applications open and visible, NOT ONLY TWO.
> 
> [quote="Haloman800, post: 4620626, member: 235972"Windows 8 might be good for a tablet interface, but it is horrible for a desktop/laptop setup.. It convolutes everything and makes simple tasks much harder...


 
Agreed.[/quote]

How about you learn how to use the operating system before you go and cause a whole other thread to be made because of it.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 23, 2013)

nl255 said:


> Ask Microsoft or just look at their marketing materials as to how keyboards/mice are obsolete and touch/voice is the future.


That's not citation on stating what the next version is going to do.

That's your own theory.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> What the hell says its legacy software? If you arent supposed to use the desktop why would they ADD features in not only 8 but also Blue? How about you cite some goddamn sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well then they must have changed their minds then. Otherwise why would Valve go to all the trouble of porting both Steam and the Source engine to Linux if they didn't see the writing on the wall that Metro/Modern and a locked down Microsoft App Store was the future of Windows?



A customized Win 8 embedded install (as there is no version of 7lite for Windows 8 yet) on x86.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Agreed.


 
How about you learn how to use the operating system before you go and cause a whole other thread to be made because of it.[/quote]

That's what this is about, the operating system in question being Windows 8/Metro.  Yes you can use third party hacks like Start8 and that one that lets you run Metro apps in regular windows but that isn't really using the operating system as you can't really call it Windows 8 anymore once so many low level changes have been made.


----------



## nl255 (Apr 23, 2013)

Rydian said:


> That's not citation on stating what the next version is going to do.
> 
> That's your own theory.


 
Ok, then so why did Valve spend a crapton of money porting Steam/Source over to Linux?


----------



## Rydian (Apr 23, 2013)

nl255 said:


> Ok, then so why did Valve spend a crapton of money porting Steam/Source over to Linux?


A couple possible reasons.
1 - To be able to sell products to Linux users easily.  There's lots of Linux users, and while some of them use Steam and Steam-bought games, it's generally difficult for them to do this.  By doing it natively, they make the process simpler and get more customers.  This means more sales, which means money.
2 - "Steam boxes" are likely to run Linux, due to the cost of licensing Windows.  Developing and testing the platform needs to be done before any of the products can come out of course.  If they release a useless product, they will not make money.  If they release a useful product, they stand a good chance of making some money.
3 - To get Linux developers using Steam, which means more products on Steam, and Steam gets a cut of every sale.

And again, you're talking theories.  You have no citation or proof, just your own personal speculation.  You may want to go read up on things like "the scientific method", "fact versus opinion", and the like.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

Rydains response was better and nicer.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

nl255 said:


> How about you learn how to use the operating system before you go and cause a whole other thread to be made because of it.


 
That's what this is about, the operating system in question being Windows 8/Metro.  Yes you can use third party hacks like Start8 and that one that lets you run Metro apps in regular windows but that isn't really using the operating system as you can't really call it Windows 8 anymore once so many low level changes have been made.[/quote]

Im not saying mod your operating system, im saying flat-out learn to use it. Everything hes complained about can be solved with a Win key command, or just opening up Desktop, which is also a Win Key command. And how the hell is Start 8 a hack? You people do realize theres more to programs then clicking a desktop icon and opening a Window, right?


----------



## evandixon (Apr 23, 2013)

By the way, the new UI was designed for touch.  Full-screen apps and, well, everything is quite nice on my Surface Pro.  On my desktop (which I'm using right now), I mainly use desktop mode, and the ONLY negative difference is that the start button isn't visible.  So just click in the corner where it used to be and you'll go to the start screen.  Just type in what app you want (just like you could since Vista) and there you go.

(Unless you just don't like it because it's a little different.  Then... whatever.  Use Windows 7 if you want.)


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 23, 2013)

UniqueGeek said:


> By the way, the new UI was designed for touch.  Full-screen apps and, well, everything is quite nice on my Surface Pro.  On my desktop (which I'm using right now), I mainly use desktop mode, and the ONLY negative difference is that the start button isn't visible.  So just click in the corner where it used to be and you'll go to the start screen.  Just type in what app you want (just like you could since Vista) and there you go.
> 
> (Unless you just don't like it because it's a little different.  Then... whatever.  Use Windows 7 if you want.)



Thank you! Logic! Use Windows 7 if you dont like how 8 lays out, but dont go and blame the OS, its the same thing as Windows 7 but with the Metro interface!


----------



## nl255 (Apr 24, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> That's what this is about, the operating system in question being Windows 8/Metro. Yes you can use third party hacks like Start8 and that one that lets you run Metro apps in regular windows but that isn't really using the operating system as you can't really call it Windows 8 anymore once so many low level changes have been made.


 
Im not saying mod your operating system, im saying flat-out learn to use it. Everything hes complained about can be solved with a Win key command, or just opening up Desktop, which is also a Win Key command. And how the hell is Start 8 a hack? You people do realize theres more to programs then clicking a desktop icon and opening a Window, right?[/quote]

Even if Start 8 is not a hack, ModernMix definitely is as Metro/Modern apps were never supposed to be run in a window. It's no different than that hack that was used to make EverQuest run in windowed mode or that GBA hypervisor that works on the DS despite not having a MMU. Unless you are trying to claim that things like API hooking and patching software in memory (yes, just like a gameshark) aren't hacks.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 24, 2013)

nl255 said:


> Im not saying mod your operating system, im saying flat-out learn to use it. Everything hes complained about can be solved with a Win key command, or just opening up Desktop, which is also a Win Key command. And how the hell is Start 8 a hack? You people do realize theres more to programs then clicking a desktop icon and opening a Window, right?


 
Even if Start 8 is not a hack, ModernMix definitely is as Metro/Modern apps were never supposed to be run in a window. It's no different than that hack that was used to make EverQuest run in windowed mode or that GBA hypervisor that works on the DS despite not having a MMU. Unless you are trying to claim that things like API hooking and patching software in memory (yes, just like a gameshark) aren't hacks.[/quote]

"Hmm, hes right about the fact the one mod he stated by name wasnt a hack, let me go and bring up a shitload of other ones that have no bearing on the thread!" 

Im done discussing this with you.


----------



## Minox (Apr 24, 2013)

nl255 said:


> Otherwise why would Valve go to all the trouble of porting both Steam and the Source engine to Linux if they didn't see the writing on the wall that Metro/Modern and a locked down Microsoft App Store was the future of Windows?


Because they want to guard themselves against such a possibility even though it may never see the light of day? They're essentially putting their eggs in several baskets so that one company's demise wouldn't necessarily mean the end of all their "eggs" (or Valve itself for that matter ;p).


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 24, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Thank you! Logic! Use Windows 7 if you dont like how 8 lays out, but dont go and blame the OS, its the same thing as Windows 7 but with the Metro interface!


 
1. Most, if not all new PCs generally come with Windows 8 preinstalled. Should we buy a new PC (when we need one of course), which in the price includes a Windows 8 licence, the go out a buy a second windows licence this time for windows 7, paying twice for the an OS which shouldn't be broken in the first place?
2. Learn to use a TABLET OS on a DESKTOP computer, which is both difficult and bad, OR have to click a shortcut on boot up to get out of an interface that should be an extra feature, not a default setting. Better yet, install some third party applications to restore features that have been a staple of desktop computing for about twenty years...

The bottom line is, a tablet OS should behave differently from a desktop OS, Apple learned this already, you don't see people complaining that their Mac OS is stuck with only fullscreen applications, no menus etc. do you? Because Apple didn't force a mobile OS onto it's desktop users.

Windows 8 seems perfectly fine for tablet use, where screen resolution is smaller and input methods are different. However it runs two entirely different interfaces at the same time, which is confusing and just plain daft. The old 'desktop' interface (with start menu) should be the default on a desktop computer, with no sight or sound of the new 'Metro' interface, as that is what people have been using for thirty years, there's a reason for that, IT WORKS.

I not give up on this topic and wont even look at windows again until Windows 9, or whatever silly name they come up with. It has been interesting though.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 24, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> 1. Most, if not all new PCs generally come with Windows 8 preinstalled. Should we buy a new PC (when we need one of course), which in the price includes a Windows 8 licence, the go out a buy a second windows licence this time for windows 7, paying twice for the an OS which shouldn't be broken in the first place?
> 
> *Different =\= broken. Nobody is forcing you to buy Windows 7 with your Windows 8 PC.
> *
> ...



Honestly, you sound like some guy from the 80s trying to use an iPod touch and saying its broken because it has no buttons and his walkman had better songs on it. If your too stubborn to learn how to use a OS, or just plain out dont like it, your problem. But that doesnt mean the OS is broken. Litteraly, take a second to learn how to use it and all your complaints become invalid.


----------



## FireGrey (Apr 24, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Getting rid of the Start Menu was one of the dumbest moves Microsoft has ever done. They execs and Windows programmers actually got in a fight over adding it back in Windows 8.1 (Which is an update coming). You can see the demand for it by all the Start menu replacements (Start8, StartIsBack, ClassicShell, etc).
> 
> Windows 8 might be good for a tablet interface, but it is horrible for a desktop/laptop setup.. It convolutes everything and makes simple tasks much harder, half the users couldn't even figure out how to turn it off without looking it up online.
> 
> Windows 8 is a failure, and that won't change even if they add back the Start menu. You can't change first impressions, which is why Vista is regarded as a failure (Even though service pack 1 fixed most of the problems).


Why are people steamed about there not being a start button there?
There is technically one there, just flick your mouse to the bottom left corner of your screen and click, it bring you to the start menu no problem and from there you can just mash some letters on your keyboard and it will search for files and programs in a fast and organised manner.
Oh and a note on how spinal_cord was saying that it's confusing how windows 8 runs two different interfaces at the same time, it's not confusing once you have used the OS and learnt how to use it and you are basically complaining about windows 8 because you haven't learnt how to use it but have learnt how to use other operating systems.
This OS has a lot more to offer than just being 'Windows 7 + Metro", it's performance is far greater on better hardware and I've used Windows 8 for about the same time as I have Windows 7 on my custom built PC.


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 24, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> But that doesnt mean the OS is broken.


 
If it's not broken, then why are Microsoft 'fixing' it?



The Milkman said:


> *I see people being brain washed into using that shit OS on overpriced hardware.*


 
I once had that attitude, however after actually using a Mac, I find that it does a lot of things better than Windows (somethings not so good though). Brainwashing doesn't come into it. Also Apple hardware is a similar price to PC hardware and the OS is much cheaper.


----------



## Engert (Apr 24, 2013)

Whoa whoa whoa people. Relax, i'm here now.
Can someone tell me what will a company gain by training their employees to learn Windows 8?

Thank you very much and have a great day.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 24, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> I see people being brain washed into using that shit OS on overpriced hardware.


Don't start that shit.  Seriously, you're going to bite off more than you can chew, and your ass is going to be sore.


spinal_cord said:


> I once had that attitude, however after actually using a Mac, I find that it does a lot of things better than Windows (somethings not so good though). Brainwashing doesn't come into it. Also Apple hardware is a similar price to PC hardware and the OS is much cheaper.


The _entry price_ is *much* higher for anything other than the Mac Mini (which starts at $600), which is one reason normal people rarely go for it.  Just clearing up the misunderstanding.


----------



## Rizsparky (Apr 24, 2013)

Its subjective really, I really like the simplicity of Metro... hey ho.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 24, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> If it's not broken, then why are Microsoft 'fixing' it?
> 
> 
> 
> I once had that attitude, however after actually using a Mac, I find that it does a lot of things better than Windows (somethings not so good though). Brainwashing doesn't come into it. Also Apple hardware is a similar price to PC hardware and the OS is much cheaper.



I owned a mac for about a year, hated it. Great for businesses and schools, I kind of miss it when it comes to homework iCloud seems like it could have been helpful around now, but not for personal stuff that I do day to day.

But yeah, brainwashed really wasnt the right term 

Also, Mircosoft isnt fixing anything. Tell me, if a 7 year old kid starts screaming in your face because he thinks your too old to be playing a DS, and you put it away, are you doing it because your a bad person for playing it or because you want the kid to shut the hell up?


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 25, 2013)

that analogy made no sense at all...

horrible os sales, poor adaption rate, desktop/laptop manufacturers blaming windows 8 for poor sales, and general user feedback are the reason they are fixing it


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> that analogy made no sense at all...
> 
> horrible os sales, poor adaption rate, desktop/laptop manufacturers blaming windows 8 for poor sales, and general user feedback are the reason they are fixing it




PCs in general have been taking a dive lately, not suprised seeing how tablets are getting x86 processors and becoming cheaper and easier to use alternatives, the analogy made sense, Mircosoft is basically "putting away" the Metro (by allowing Desktop on boot) in order to "shut up" the user base. Im not suprised seeing how a good percentage of them dont want to attempt to use the OS properly and flat-out dismiss it as "broken".

And goddammit man, the reply button is right there in the corner >:L


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 25, 2013)

Like I and many other people have said, Metro is fine as an addition, but Microsoft made a mistake by removing the option to keep it hidden for desktop users. You keep mentioning "just drop into desktop mode" and such. But it really is a horrible inconvenience to have to click something every single time you boot up windows before doing anything else. The so called 8.1 update will fix most peoples issues simply by allowing people to set the default mode and leave it that way.

However, as I don't need a new computer just yet, no doubt Win8 will be old and gone before I next need to by an OS.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Like I and many other people have said, Metro is fine as an addition, but Microsoft made a mistake by removing the option to keep it hidden for desktop users. You keep mentioning "just drop into desktop mode" and such. But it really is a horrible inconvenience to have to click something every single time you boot up windows before doing anything else. The so called 8.1 update will fix most peoples issues simply by allowing people to set the default mode and leave it that way.
> 
> However, as I don't need a new computer just yet, no doubt Win8 will be old and gone before I next need to by an OS.



You litterally said Mircosoft broke the OS with the Metro    but whatever, if you dont like the OS, no amount of arguement will change that. I just wish people would see that beyond the hate wagon theres an actual good OS, dare I say better then Win 7, theres no way Windows is releasing a 9 any time soon. Just try to give it another shot after Blue comes out , ok?


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 25, 2013)

They did indeed break the OS with metro, by forcing people to use it as the default interface on a desktop computer. If the option was there to ignore it, and run metro applications windowed then I would have no issues.


----------



## Issac (Apr 25, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> They did indeed break the OS with metro, by forcing people to use it as the default interface on a desktop computer. If the option was there to ignore it, and run metro applications windowed then I would have no issues.



Having to click the desktop icon every time you boot your computer isn't such a big deal (unless you reboot 20 times a day). And sure, running metero apps in a window would be nice. Now I don't use any metro apps at all becaue I don't need any. Except Minesweeper. But if throwing windows 8 away because some app can't be run in windowed mode is a solution, why isn't "don't use that app" or "find a desktop app" one?


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> They did indeed break the OS with metro, by forcing people to use it as the default interface on a desktop computer. If the option was there to ignore it, and run metro applications windowed then I would have no issues.



Your a broken record buddy.


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Your a broken record buddy.


And you're not?

and windows 9 will show up in another 2 and a half years given the current 3 year release cycle
people skipped vista and went to 7 from xp, and they will do it again this time (assuming 9 isnt an unholy mess spawned from 8 with nothing but metro) unless ms fixes the problems that users have with it
the consumer is always right in the end


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> And you're not?
> 
> and windows 9 will show up in another 2 and a half years given the current 3 year release cycle
> people skipped vista and went to 7 from xp, and they will do it again this time (assuming 9 isnt an unholy mess spawned from 8 with nothing but metro) unless ms fixes the problems that users have with it
> the consumer is always right in the end




Ok, lets do this a different way.

Tell me, what problem is it exactly people do not like about Windows 8.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Ok, lets do this a different way.
> 
> Tell me, what problem is it exactly people do not like about Windows 8.


 
1. No Start menu.
2. Not everything in the world is touch screen.

Your response?


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> 1. No Start menu.
> 2. Not everything in the world is touch screen.
> 
> Your response?



1. Metro is the start, you can pin programs there and search up files. All it is full screen.

2. Optimized for touch screens (which us nice seeing how tablet PCs are hard as hell to use) but perfectly useful on touch pads and usable with mouses. Your not ment to spend much time navigating anyway.


----------



## Minox (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> 1. Metro is the start, you can pin programs there and search up files. All it is full screen.
> 
> 2. Optimized for touch screens (which us nice seeing how tablet PCs are hard as hell to use) but perfectly useful on touch pads and usable with mouses. Your not ment to spend much time navigating anyway.


1. What if you don't want it to disrupt your workflow by it going fullscreen but still want to launch your applications in a convenient manner?
2. Last time I tried it myself I got incredibly annoyed by the fact that things had to be done in a touch-like manner even though I didn't have a touch-capable device. Some gestures makes sense for touch-devices whereas some others makes sense for non-touch ones.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> 1. Metro is the start, you can pin programs there and search up files. All it is full screen.


 
What do companies gain by training people in this huge learning curve?





The Milkman said:


> 2. Optimized for touch screens (which us nice seeing how tablet PCs are hard as hell to use) but perfectly useful on touch pads and usable with mouses. Your not ment to spend much time navigating anyway.


 
I don't think optimized is the right word there. Geared towards touch screens is more correct. That's why the tiles are so big in the Metro screen.
Do you know that Windows 9 will bring back the trademark Start Menu which has defined Microsoft for more then two decades?


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Minox said:


> 1. What if you don't want it to disrupt your workflow by it going fullscreen but still want to launch your applications in a convenient manner?
> 2. Last time I tried it myself I got incredibly annoyed by the fact that things had to be done in a touch-like manner even though I didn't have a touch-capable device. Some gestures makes sense for touch-devices whereas some others makes sense for non-touch ones.



1. I personally dont find it very intursive, in fact I often tab out of games to change a song via Metro and and still manage to keep a control point from being captured. And if you do, there are little tweaks you can make in your taskbar in order to simplify it. All else fails theres always just pinning programs you would need to the taskbar.

2. Every single gesture can be executed on the keyboard. Most use the Win key and every element of metro can be navigated via buttons.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> What do companies gain by training people in this huge learning curve?
> 
> 
> I don't think optimized is the right word there. Geared towards touch screens is more correct. That's why the tiles are so big in the Metro screen.
> Do you know that Windows 9 will bring back the trademark Start Menu which has defined Microsoft for more then two decades?



I hope your being for sarcastic about the first one. It pretty much the same motions as with a Start menu. 

See my above post for the other.

And do you mean Windows 9? You mean Blue? Thats just 8.1 service pack.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> I hope your being for sarcastic about the first one. It pretty much the same motions as with a Start menu.
> 
> See my above post for the other.


 
Sarcastic? No not at all. I am not sure if you're studying or working but several companies will not adopt Windows 8 for the simple fact that there is "too much pain with no gain".
And when companies do not adopt Windows, there's a pretty sure bet that they will change their ways. Which is what they are doing with Windows 9.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> Sarcastic? No not at all. I am not sure if you're studying or working but several companies will not adopt Windows 8 for the simple fact that there is "too much pain with no gain".
> And when companies do not adopt Windows, there's a pretty sure bet that they will change their ways. Which is what they are doing with Windows 9.



Huh, didnt know that. But personally I wouldnt use Windows computers for businesses in general. Macs are more built for that kind of thing, not only tgat but theres a reason its called a Personal Computer. And they are reintroducing the Start menu in Blue.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Huh, didnt know that. But personally I wouldnt use Windows computers for businesses in general. Macs are more built for that kind of thing, not only tgat but theres a reason its called a Personal Computer. And they are reintroducing the Start menu in Blue.


 
Look, i'm sorry but you would have nothing but problems if you use Macs in Enterprise environments. Apple is not designed for Enterprise use. Microsoft is.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 25, 2013)

I've seen Macs in enterprise use all the time.  Hell, one of the desktop iMacs I saw was hosting a VM with a temporary server on it on the main screen while a second screen plugged into it was being used to remote into the physical server to restore it to working condition.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

Rydian, yes they exist. Many of them in fact. But in many areas are incompatible in Enterprise use. Their main weakness is incompatibility with DHCP servers, than calendar issues with Exchange, inability to troubleshoot hardware in-house (you'd have to take them to an Apple store) and a few other areas. They're just a headache but many people use them in Enterprise enviroments, yes.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> Look, i'm sorry but you would have nothing but problems if you use Macs in Enterprise environments. Apple is not designed for Enterprise use. Microsoft is.



Im talking about business, on employee level use. Not hosting servers that hold your corporations entire system or anything like that. That would seem more for Windows server rather then 8.

Also, I think were slipping off topic a bit here, then again the topic seems to be going no where.


----------



## Engert (Apr 25, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Im talking about business, on employee level use. Not hosting servers that hold your corporations entire system or anything like that. That would seem more for Windows server rather then 8.
> 
> Also, I think were slipping off topic a bit here, then again the topic seems to be going no where.


 
You changed the topic to Macs. I just responded.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> Their main weakness is incompatibility with DHCP servers


Son, you be trippin'.  OSX works with DHCP just fine.  My college buddy had a Macbook Pro and brought it around tons of places, including my home, and DHCP always worked just fine.



Engert said:


> inability to troubleshoot hardware in-house (you'd have to take them to an Apple store) and a few other areas.


Depends on the form-factor, and this goes for other manufacturers as well.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 25, 2013)

Engert said:


> You changed the topic to Macs. I just responded.



Which in turn Rydain responded to in which you then responed to, I just mentioned it as clarification.


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 26, 2013)

Would someone explain to me the logic of enterprises upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7?

I've seen the argument that the fact that businesses have adopted Windows 7 as a sign of its goodness, and that they willingly upgraded over XP. But, I mean, what does any business stand to gain by upgrading its OS? Aren't newer OS's inherently more unstable, and generally different by design? And think of all of the money that needs to be spent on compatibility testing of old apps to make sure they still work. Employees got really confused when switching from XP to 7 as well, and needed lots of training.

What did the companies actually gain, then? I'm not arguing a point or anything here, just 100% curious. I can't see any reason why a company would (at this point) ever willingly upgrade their machines. Average Jo Blow worker maybe uses Outlook, a web browser (most people are too cool for IE anymore, so you can't argue that), and a spreadsheet program. You don't exactly need 32GB of RAM, a quad-core processor, and the latest and greatest OS for that.


----------



## YayMii (Apr 26, 2013)

Engert said:


> I don't think optimized is the right word there. Geared towards touch screens is more correct. That's why the tiles are so big in the Metro screen.
> Do you know that Windows 9 will bring back the trademark Start Menu which has defined Microsoft for more then two decades?


IMO I'd rather have easily-accessible large graphical buttons on the whole screen to click on instead of small text in the corner. I know people will disagree with me, but IMO it's faster to access my programs that way.
I pretty much use the Metro Start Screen the way I use Mac OS's LaunchPad, as it's faster than looking through the whole app folder.

And FYI, the next version of Windows just has "boot to desktop" and "show Start button" options and a somewhat improved Metro Start screen (with resizable tiles). No traditional Start menu though, they're really trying to convince desktop users to get used to the Metro Start screen.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 26, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> But, I mean, what does any business stand to gain by upgrading its OS?


All the new features and compatibility with new programs.  In the case of NT5 (2K/XP to NT6 (Vista/7/8) there's an extremely large number of changes for the good, including full-screen hardware acceleration, updating multiple APIs, new driver models, and more.  There's modern programs that *require* Vista/7 to run because the technologies they use did not exist in XP and below, in fact.

The Windows Volume Mixer works off the new sound drivers and now allows programs to record the entire computer and/or mute certain programs instead of having _just_ a single volume level for the whole machine.  Recording programs that work off of those features need them to exist.  This is something that makes game recording in Vista/7/8 much better as a single program can do something like record your game's sound, Skype's sound, and your microphone at once.  Otherwise you'd need to record all three separately at the same time and then mix them later.



PityOnU said:


> Aren't newer OS's inherently more unstable, and generally different by design?


First, no.  As far as instability, some of the changes to the driver model in Vista/7/8 make it so that when something like your sound or video driver crashes, it no longer causes the BSoD and shuts down the whole computer.  Instead Windows unloads that driver (halting it's execution) and reloads it.  So this is one example of the newer OS being _more_ stable, because a bug in a third-party driver won't break _everything else_ when it decides to go bad.

Second, yes (obviously new stuff is different), but people have to get over their innate human fear of !!!DIFFERENT!!! at some point in their life, and hopefully it happens well before they go off and take part in a business.  A business that refuses to upgrade something merely because the new thing is different... that's stagnation.



PityOnU said:


> And think of all of the money that needs to be spent on compatibility testing of old apps to make sure they still work.


Step 1 - Fire it up.
Step 2 - Use it.
Step 3 - Does it work? Y/N

As a less-snarky response, if a program does not even have compatibility with NT6, either that's an old version you need to update, or if there are no updates then there is likely no support either, which is a big issue in a business, and a sign that an alternative may be needed.

For example the older version of Deep Freeze in use by my college on their XP machines (which had been set up some years ago) had some small bugs with 7.  So what did we do?  We downloaded the latest version from Faronics, stuck a copy on the servers, and started using that version on all the machines.  Problem solved (and it even took one less click to do a commonly-done task).

_The question should not be "is my business suitable to use this program?"_  The question is "does this program work for my business"?  If the answer is no, look into alternative products.  Software is a business as well, and there are competitors out there.  In almost every case there's a number of different companies that make programs aimed to solve the same problems.  Hell, even for more technical tasks like OS virtualization there's VMWare, Virtualbox, MSVPC, and more.



PityOnU said:


> Employees got really confused when switching from XP to 7 as well, and needed lots of training.


If the employees only had the most basic of computer know-how, then I could see this being an issue...  _But that's a problem with your employees_.  If one of your employees is unable to do his job anymore because you painted a machine a different color or replaced a sign on a door with one that has a different font and a colored background, you might want to re-consider who you're hiring.  Perhaps only hire highschool graduates, GED holders, and other people who can show they have learned basic modern skills, such as problem-solving and pattern-recognition that everybody is expected to have once they reach workable age. 

I'm being demeaning towards them because the differences are not nearly large enough to confound anybody who... you know, _knows how to use a modern computer_.  There's still three buttons in the upper-right of programs, they're still in the same order and still have the same function.  The task bar is at the bottom and has the start menu on the left, and notification icons on the right with programs in the middle.  The desktop still has icons.  Browsers still have their task bars at the top of the page.  So on and so forth.



PityOnU said:


> What did the companies actually gain, then? I'm not arguing a point or anything here, just 100% curious. I can't see any reason why a company would (at this point) ever willingly upgrade their machines. Average Jo Blow worker maybe uses Outlook, a web browser (most people are too cool for IE anymore, so you can't argue that), and a spreadsheet program. You don't exactly need 32GB of RAM, a quad-core processor, and the latest and greatest OS for that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS_Editor
Ever used that program?  It's a text editor.

_"Why would somebody ever upgrade to something newer?  As that program shows, you don't need a whole 64MB of RAM for a text editor!"_


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 26, 2013)

YayMii said:


> IMO I'd rather have easily-accessible large graphical buttons on the whole screen to click on instead of small text in the corner. I know people will disagree with me, but IMO it's faster to access my programs that way.
> I pretty much use the Metro Start Screen the way I use Mac OS's LaunchPad, as it's faster than looking through the whole app folder.
> 
> And FYI, the next version of Windows just has "boot to desktop" and "show Start button" options and a somewhat improved Metro Start screen (with resizable tiles). No traditional Start menu though, they're really trying to convince desktop users to get used to the Metro Start screen.



Funny, if they had put this in from launch, threads like this one all over the internet wouldnt exsist, people would just think Metro is what it is, a full screen Start menu. Oh well.


EDIT: Dear god Rydain you set up a fortification of text XD


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> All the new features and compatibility with new programs. In the case of NT5 (2K/XP to NT6 (Vista/7/8) there's an extremely large number of changes for the good, including full-screen hardware acceleration, updating multiple APIs, new driver models, and more. There's modern programs that *require* Vista/7 to run because the technologies they use did not exist in XP and below, in fact.
> 
> The Windows Volume Mixer works off the new sound drivers and now allows programs to record the entire computer and/or mute certain programs instead of having _just_ a single volume level for the whole machine. Recording programs that work off of those features need them to exist. This is something that makes game recording in Vista/7/8 much better as a single program can do something like record your game's sound, Skype's sound, and your microphone at once. Otherwise you'd need to record all three separately at the same time and then mix them later.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the detailed response. Again, I wasn't arguing anything, I was just curious.

I can see your points, but in response to some of them, my mother is an electrical engineer and works for Verizon Wireless. When they updated to Windows 7, she called me from work to have me walk her through how to find her documents. She's definitely not an idiot (electrical engineer), but she still got really confused. They should have given them training.

With the new features you listed, I'm still not quite sure what tangible benefit a company would derive from full screen hardware acceleration. Again, the average employee doesn't do Maya modeling at work. And the more stable driver models, yeah, that's great, but there probably weren't any driver issues left on an operating system that, at the time of the Windows 7 launch, was 8 years old. They were probably all pretty done and sorted at that point. Obviously, things such as the above were marked improvements that Windows 7 brought to the table, but my question still remains regarding what your average company stood to gain from upgrading.

Regarding the software compatibility, for a consumer program, yes you can just fire it up and see if it runs. If not, just get a new version. However, very many (large) businesses have bespoke applications they use internally that were developed 10+ years ago. Maybe of these are line of business applications which, were there so much as a hiccup, could cost the company money. I have worked at places such like this, and those places, at the time of this writing, are still using Windows XP. Upgrading breaks their system, which works fine as is, and which does not need anything like graphical acceleration or driver improvements.

Finally, while your example of the MSDOS text editor is very good, I'm not sure it really applies to XP versus Windows 7. It's not like Windows XP is stuck in a terminal or something. Windows XP can run Office 2010, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, etc. without any problems whatsoever. It's not like you actually gain the use of any important business applications for upgrading to Windows 7.

Thus, my confusion continues.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 26, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Im talking about business, on employee level use. Not hosting servers that hold your corporations entire system or anything like that. That would seem more for Windows server rather then 8.


 
Windows Server 2012 also has the full screen Metro-style start menu. So you're stuck with it. Deal with it.



Minox said:


> 1. What if you don't want it to disrupt your workflow by it going fullscreen but still want to launch your applications in a convenient manner?


 
What exactly is disruptive about: Press start on keyboard ---> begin typing name of application --> Click?
It's EXACTLY the same thing you used to do before. Only now it's full screen.

Even if you don't believe it to be a better solution (everything bigger and easier to find vs... 'I dont like full screen for no reason whatsoever...') than Windows 7, then you just need to adapt. If you can't adapt then you're not cut out for technology. I suggest you find another hobby/career because you're going to have to deal with much bigger changes over time. In fact, if you really can't adapt to such a minor change, I fear for your general survival as a human being!


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 26, 2013)

Pleng said:


> Windows Server 2012 also has the full screen Metro-style start menu. So you're stuck with it. Deal with it.




Deal with it...? Have you read any posts ive made in this thread at all?


----------



## Minox (Apr 26, 2013)

Pleng said:


> What exactly is disruptive about: Press start on keyboard ---> begin typing name of application --> Click?
> It's EXACTLY the same thing you used to do before. Only now it's full screen.


It obstructs absolutely everything I have running for the sake of opening an over-sized full-screen menu that previously only took up a really small part of the bottom-most left side.


Pleng said:


> Even if you don't believe it to be a better solution (everything bigger and easier to find vs... 'I dont like full screen for no reason whatsoever...') than Windows 7, then you just need to adapt. If you can't adapt then you're not cut out for technology. I suggest you find another hobby/career because you're going to have to deal with much bigger changes over time. In fact, if you really can't adapt to such a minor change, I fear for your general survival as a human being!


Quite frankly, piss off. I usually don't have a problem adapting to things but that doesn't mean that I *have to* adapt to new design choices I disagree with just for the sake of adapting. If there's something I disagree with then I have the right to stay on a previous system or find an alternative solution that suits my preferences without anyone going around slandering me by saying that I either have to adopt or stop using technology altogether as I'm supposedly a human unfit for living.

Not to mention the fact that it's rather ridiculous for you to use personal attacks as a way of attempting to further your argument.


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 26, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Funny, if they had put this in from launch, threads like this one all over the internet wouldnt exsist, people would just think Metro is what it is, a full screen Start menu. Oh well.


 
One of peoples main issues, is that it WAS there in the pre-release, then MS in their ultimate wisdom, removed it, taking away peoples choice, a choice that they had expected to be there in the final release because it was shown to them.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 26, 2013)

Minox said:


> It obstructs absolutely everything I have running for the sake of opening an over-sized full-screen menu that previously only took up a really small part of the bottom-most left side.


 
And what do you _need_ to be seeing on your screen in the three seconds it takes you to launch an app?



> Quite frankly, piss off. I usually don't have a problem adapting to things but that doesn't mean that I *have to* adapt to new design choices I disagree with just for the sake of adapting. If there's something I disagree with then I have the right to stay on a previous system or find an alternative solution that suits my preferences without anyone going around slandering me by saying that I either have to adopt or stop using technology altogether as I'm supposedly a human unfit for living.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that it's rather ridiculous for you to use personal attacks as a way of attempting to further your argument.


 
It's not a personal insult, it's a genuine sentiment. Yes you have the right to stick with an older system or find an alternative. This (certainly seeking out an alternative) is what we refer to as cutting off our nose to spite our face. Assuming that Windows is you're choice of operating system then you will one day for one reason need the latest version and it's start menu will be a variant of what we see in Windows 8. So kicking up such a fuss is pointless. It's _not_ a big thing to adapt to. There's no good reason for you to be so anal about it. So yes, you clearly have issues with adapting.


----------



## FireGrey (Apr 26, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> If it's not broken, then why are Microsoft 'fixing' it?
> 
> 
> 
> I once had that attitude, however after actually using a Mac, I find that it does a lot of things better than Windows (somethings not so good though). Brainwashing doesn't come into it. Also Apple hardware is a similar price to PC hardware and the OS is much cheaper.


It does a lot of things better than a PC when said PC is cheaper than the Mac.


----------



## Minox (Apr 26, 2013)

Pleng said:


> And what do you _need_ to be seeing on your screen in the three seconds it takes you to launch an app?


Chat windows and videos I'm currently watching for one.



Pleng said:


> It's not a personal insult, it's a genuine sentiment. Yes you have the right to stick with an older system or find an alternative. This (certainly seeking out an alternative) is what we refer to as cutting off our nose to spite our face. Assuming that Windows is you're choice of operating system then you will one day for one reason need the latest version and it's start menu will be a variant of what we see in Windows 8. So kicking up such a fuss is pointless. It's _not_ a big thing to adapt to. There's no good reason for you to be so anal about it. So yes, you clearly have issues with adapting.


Seeking out an alternative when something isn't working as you want it to is what I'd like to call problem-solving.

Nonetheless, I'm going to end it here. It seems fairly clear to me that you don't understand the concept of personal preferences and tolerating the choices of others.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 26, 2013)

Minox said:


> Chat windows and videos I'm currently watching for one.


 
Chat windows are a non issue... there's no way in the world a 3-second pause is going to change your life. And how often do you start applications while watching videos? Seriously? If you're starting more than a couple while watching a video, you probably shouldn't be watching one in the first place. And if you *do* face that eventuality more than once a day then it's _*at the very worst*_ a minor inconvenience - not worth changing an entire OS for.



> Seeking out an alternative when something isn't working as you want it to is what I'd like to call problem-solving.
> 
> Nonetheless, I'm going to end it here. It seems fairly clear to me that you don't understand the concept of personal preferences and tolerating the choices of others.


 
I understand personal choice and preference all too well. I also understand seeking out an alternative if something isn't working. The problem is, you can't demonstrate at all that the Start screen of Windows 8 isn't working. The examples you have provided are close to absurd and sound like they're coming from somebody who's decided they're not going to like the system before even trying it, and are determined to stick to that view.


----------



## Minox (Apr 26, 2013)

Pleng said:


> I understand personal choice and preference all too well. I also understand seeking out an alternative if something isn't working. The problem is, you can't demonstrate at all that the Start screen of Windows 8 isn't working. The examples you have provided are close to absurd and sound like they're coming from somebody who's decided they're not going to like the system before even trying it, and are determined to stick to that view.


Windows 8 provides me with next to no benefits over Windows 7 while giving me small annoyances that I would be better without. Staying with Windows 7 is not only cheaper, but also a more enjoyable experience.


----------



## Engert (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Son, you be trippin'. OSX works with DHCP just fine. My college buddy had a Macbook Pro and brought it around tons of places, including my home, and DHCP always worked just fine.


 
Really Rydian? Have a look at this:

http://www.net.princeton.edu/apple-ios/ios41-allows-lease-to-expire-keeps-using-IP-address.html

Note the part where it says:
*The bug can cause the iOS device to disrupt service for other devices on the network from time to time.*

And when you have 10000 wifi users, they'll be pissed.
But i can have you talk with my network admin who's been doing this for 17 years. If you can figure it out, you'll get his salary and  a 20% sign in bonus.



Rydian said:


> Depends on the form-factor, and this goes for other manufacturers as well.


 
No it doesn't depend on the form factor. We can troubleshoot anything made in China, Europe or wherever. Anything but Apple devices because Steve has control issues.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> *OSX* works with DHCP just fine.





Engert said:


> Really Rydian? Have a look at this:
> [...]
> *iOS*
> [...]











Engert said:


> No it doesn't depend on the form factor. We can troubleshoot anything made in China, Europe or wherever. Anything but Apple devices because Steve has control issues.


"No the issue does happen, because it happens".  Yeah, um, needs info.

Like, what model and what issues?  Apple uses the standard x86 hardware nowadays, and has for years.  The GPUs are Intel Integrated or AMD (HD 5870s and shit in the iMacs), for example.



PityOnU said:


> I can see your points, but in response to some of them, my mother is an electrical engineer and works for Verizon Wireless. When they updated to Windows 7, she called me from work to have me walk her through how to find her documents. She's definitely not an idiot (electrical engineer), but she still got really confused. They should have given them training.


Start - Documents.  Just another example of a lack of knowing what they're doing.

Don't get me wrong, I see this all the time, but it's still the people at fault.  People don't go around driving cars not knowing how to turn the windshield wipers on or how to put it in reverse, but you see people using computers all the time with jack-shit info on what they're doing.  _If it's somebody's job to work with a computer and they can't find how to get to their documents folder between Windows versions, that's a lack of either required experience, or employee training._

Like, if somebody needs to drive around as part of their job, and you give them the keys to a company car and they can't figure out how to even start it because it's different than their personal car (the ignition is on the dash like some newer models instead of on the steering column)... you're not going to think too much of their skills, are 'ya?  Somebody that knows how to drive a car would get in the driver's seat, spend all of two seconds moving their hand around, realizing they can't put the key in, then spend maybe 5 more seconds visually scanning for where to put the key.  They find it, they can start the car and do their job.



PityOnU said:


> With the new features you listed, I'm still not quite sure what tangible benefit a company would derive from full screen hardware acceleration. Again, the average employee doesn't do Maya modeling at work.


I'm talking GPU acceleration outside of programs.  With a supported GPU, this means the whole screen can benefit from having a GPU installed, so things like moving windows around isn't such a hog on the CPU, freeing it up for other tasks (one example).  Does anybody else remember trying to move windows around on XP and below with a framebuffer driver, and how you could visibly see the new window sliding up/down into place?



PityOnU said:


> And the more stable driver models, yeah, that's great, but there probably weren't any driver issues left on an operating system that, at the time of the Windows 7 launch, was 8 years old.  They were probably all pretty done and sorted at that point


That's not how it works... _Microsoft doesn't make specific drivers, other companies do_.  You can download a driver from Realtek or Nvidia or something and have it crash a month from now under certain circumstances.  Driver stability is one of the big reasons that Microsoft made changes to the OS to separate some third-party driver types from the kernel, because they realized over the years that all these other companies would put out a buggy/crashing driver every so often, and it would impact people negatively.






There's some info I grabbed from my machine.  At any given time, there's plenty of third-party drivers in use on any home computer system, and stopping the whole system from crashing when one driver does is a noted benefit.  New devices that need new drivers come out all the time, and even devices sold at the same time need different drivers.  The driver for my old GeForce 6200-ALE won't work for my current AMD HD 5770, the drivers for my old webcam aren't the same as my new ones, etc.

The whole driver-install process has been simplified in recent versions of Windows by having the OS search signed drivers and download/install them for you _so many people nowadays don't even know about needing third-party drivers, but they are still very much in use and under active development_.



PityOnU said:


> Obviously, things such as the above were marked improvements that Windows 7 brought to the table, but my question still remains regarding what your average company stood to gain from upgrading.


The ability to use new programs, less crashes, third-party driver crashes not bringing down the entire computer with them, additional controls for things like audio, and if you wanted a list of added features and junk you could just check some comparison article online. 



PityOnU said:


> Regarding the software compatibility, for a consumer program, yes you can just fire it up and see if it runs. If not, just get a new version. However, very many (large) businesses have bespoke applications they use internally that were developed 10+ years ago. Maybe of these are line of business applications which, were there so much as a hiccup, could cost the company money. I have worked at places such like this, and those places, at the time of this writing, are still using Windows XP. Upgrading breaks their system, which works fine as is, and which does not need anything like graphical acceleration or driver improvements.


And those companies are running on a crappy setup that will, one day, need to be gutted and made modern.

http://thedailywtf.com/
That site is a good example.  It's full of _years_ (I submitted a screenshot for an article in 2006) of stories like the above.  There's tons of companies out there that refuse to update their systems because they have one specific program they need running that was never intended to run that long.  You can read just how many issues it causes, and the companies _eventually_ need to do a replacement, often with great benefit to themselves (such as improved employee productivity).  The problem is in actually replacing it after a company has waited so long, as the people who were part of the original implementation are often long gone by the time the company finally admits it _needs_ to update.

But this would just get into a whole discussion on what it actually means to future-proof a program, and coding for standards versus what people normally do under pressure, etc.



PityOnU said:


> Finally, while your example of the MSDOS text editor is very good, I'm not sure it really applies to XP versus Windows 7. It's not like Windows XP is stuck in a terminal or something. Windows XP can run Office 2010, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, etc. without any problems whatsoever. It's not like you actually gain the use of any important business applications for upgrading to Windows 7.
> 
> Thus, my confusion continues.


It was an example on how the whole "I can do this basic task fine with the old stuff, so I don't need anything new" idea just encourages stagnation.

Horse-and-buggies worked fine for hundreds of years, why go to cars?  The answer for this example is way easier maintenance, faster speeds, more safety, the ability to use modern infrastructure to get around, etc.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 26, 2013)

Minox said:


> Windows 8 provides me with next to no benefits over Windows 7 while giving me small annoyances that I would be better without.


 
That's an absolutely fine reason for staying with Windows 7. However when the time comes that you do need to upgrade your OS, be it for hardware support, wanting the latest DirectX game, or whatever, abstaining because you 'dont like' the new start menu is over the top


----------



## Engert (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian, what is the difference between iOS and OSX? I'm not an expert on Macs.
But all i see with Win8 is OS consolidation like Apple, which is backfiring on them.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 26, 2013)

Engert said:


> Rydian, what is the difference between iOS and OSX? I'm not an expert on Macs.


OSX is the desktop OS that runs on Macs, _iOS is what runs on iPods/iPads and the like_.



Engert said:


> But all i see with Win8 is OS consolidation like Apple, which is backfiring on them.


8 is a continuation of Vista/7 (it's NT6.2 versus Vista's 6.0 and 7's 6.1), it contains all the same core technologies and is, in all aspects, the new version of Windows.  It's just the Metro design choices have created a lot of controversy, which is why people are treating it like a black sheep (for good reasons or not).


----------



## YayMii (Apr 26, 2013)

Windows 8 isn't just a reskinned Windows 7. They've optimized it quite a bit, my desktop (with an 8-year-old refurbished 7200RPM HDD) can even boot up as fast as my ultrabook (with a SATA2 SSD) now. IMO the UI is a worthy tradeoff for a speed boost (but I like Metro, so my opinion is kinda biased).


Engert said:


> Rydian, what is the difference between iOS and OSX? I'm not an expert on Macs.
> But all i see with Win8 is OS consolidation like Apple, which is backfiring on them.


iOS is iPod/iPhone/iPad. Mac OS X is Mac.
They're not the same thing, so I don't see why you would bring a mobile OS when we're talking about PC OSes.


----------



## Engert (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> OSX is the desktop OS that runs on Macs, _iOS is what runs on iPods/iPads and the like_.


 
And how different are these two?



Rydian said:


> 8 is a continuation of Vista/7 (it's NT6.2 versus Vista's 6.0 and 7's 6.1), it contains all the same core technologies and is, in all aspects, the new version of Windows. It's just the Metro design choices have created a lot of controversy, which is why people are treating it like a black sheep (for good reasons or not).


 
I understand that. What we're debating here is "Will Windows 8 live in infamy like Windows ME or Windows Vista?"


----------



## Rydian (Apr 26, 2013)

Engert said:


> And how different are these two?


About as different as Android from Ubuntu.  Both share the same kernel, but all the userland tools (including things like the entire desktop handling software, program rights management, wifi support/control, etc.) are different.



Engert said:


> I understand that. What we're debating here is "Will Windows 8 live in infamy like Windows ME or Windows Vista?"


At this point I say "most likely".  I saw the ME and Vista scenarios, and while the percentage of complainers is less, the number of legitimate (that is, not based on false info) complaints is more.

I have to mention the second type because I still, to this day, see complaints about Vista that are just complete BS and based on lies or misunderstandings from 20 years ago, like that it doesn't play DVDs, and files you make on Vista can't be read on XP, etc.


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Start - Documents. Just another example of a lack of knowing what they're doing.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I see this all the time, but it's still the people at fault. People don't go around driving cars not knowing how to turn the windshield wipers on or how to put it in reverse, but you see people using computers all the time with jack-shit info on what they're doing. _If it's somebody's job to work with a computer and they can't find how to get to their documents folder between Windows versions, that's a lack of either required experience, or employee training._
> 
> Like, if somebody needs to drive around as part of their job, and you give them the keys to a company car and they can't figure out how to even start it because it's different than their personal car (the ignition is on the dash like some newer models instead of on the steering column)... you're not going to think too much of their skills, are 'ya? Somebody that knows how to drive a car would get in the driver's seat, spend all of two seconds moving their hand around, realizing they can't put the key in, then spend maybe 5 more seconds visually scanning for where to put the key. They find it, they can start the car and do their job.


 
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the confusion is still there for employees, making this a reason for a company NOT to upgrade as opposed to the other way around.



Rydian said:


> I'm talking GPU acceleration outside of programs. With a supported GPU, this means the whole screen can benefit from having a GPU installed, so things like moving windows around isn't such a hog on the CPU, freeing it up for other tasks (one example). Does anybody else remember trying to move windows around on XP and below with a framebuffer driver, and how you could visibly see the new window sliding up/down into place?


 
Again, I agree, but honestly how often does the average person move windows around on their desktop? And even so, if you are moving a window, you aren't interacting with anything else other than the window. I don't feel as if it is worth it to gut the whole system just so a few employees can waggle some windows around faster.



Rydian said:


> That's not how it works... _Microsoft doesn't make specific drivers, other companies do_. You can download a driver from Realtek or Nvidia or something and have it crash a month from now under certain circumstances. Driver stability is one of the big reasons that Microsoft made changes to the OS to separate some third-party driver types from the kernel, because they realized over the years that all these other companies would put out a buggy/crashing driver every so often, and it would impact people negatively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
True, but also in your screenshots is the fact that your drivers are signed by the Windows Hardware Compatibility Publisher, which means the drivers have all been verified through the Windows Hardware Quality Labs - aka tested by Microsoft to make sure it functions correctly in their operating system. For average use on a non-fucked system, these drivers should not crash.

In other news, Windows XP will search for and install drivers for you as well. But honestly that's a bit of a moot point because a company's IT department is who sets up all the hardware on a system. Employee Bob Simmons isn't going to be dropping a new soundcard into his workstation on his lunch break.



Rydian said:


> The ability to use new programs, less crashes, third-party driver crashes not bringing down the entire computer with them, additional controls for things like audio, and if you wanted a list of added features and junk you could just check some comparison article online.


 
1. I am not seeing this list of new programs you keep referring to.
2. Less crashes is arguable, especially after Windows XP installations have been in place for such a long time where as a new Windows 7 install would require the testing and ironing out of a number of bugs with things like driver and network support.
3. Third-party driver stability has nothing to do with the OS, and shit drivers will still crash your system. Especially new drivers for new hardware that works with your new OS.
4. "I'm really glad my company upgraded the OS, not I can listen to Pandora at 45% volume while I watch YouTube videos at 63% volume." Said no one ever.



Rydian said:


> And those companies are running on a crappy setup that will, one day, need to be gutted and made modern.
> 
> http://thedailywtf.com/
> That site is a good example. It's full of _years_ (I submitted a screenshot for an article in 2006) of stories like the above. There's tons of companies out there that refuse to update their systems because they have one specific program they need running that was never intended to run that long. You can read just how many issues it causes, and the companies _eventually_ need to do a replacement, often with great benefit to themselves (such as improved employee productivity). The problem is in actually replacing it after a company has waited so long, as the people who were part of the original implementation are often long gone by the time the company finally admits it _needs_ to update.
> ...


 
True! Very true! But if the system works as is, why decide that NOW is the best time to gut and rewrite everything? I guess it just so happens that retire FORTRAN programmers are all available this year, and happen to now be familiar with .NET.



Rydian said:


> It was an example on how the whole "I can do this basic task fine with the old stuff, so I don't need anything new" idea just encourages stagnation.
> 
> Horse-and-buggies worked fine for hundreds of years, why go to cars? The answer for this example is way easier maintenance, faster speeds, more safety, the ability to use modern infrastructure to get around, etc.


 
I cannot argue with any of your responses as they are true, but no where in your responses do you say that businesses upgraded to Windows 7 just because it was good/better for them than XP. As a matter of fact, it seems like the strongest reason you cite for a company to upgrade is because they are forced to by Microsoft or its partners who refuse to continue to support the old OS.

So is the real reason companies upgrade their OS because they absolutely have to, and that the point at which this occurs is generally every other release of the OS?


----------



## Rydian (Apr 26, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the confusion is still there for employees, making this a reason for a company NOT to upgrade as opposed to the other way around.





PityOnU said:


> Again, I agree, but honestly how often does the average person move windows around on their desktop?


http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/grasping.html



PityOnU said:


> True, but also in your screenshots is the fact that your drivers are signed by the Windows Hardware Compatibility Publisher, which means the drivers have all been verified through the Windows Hardware Quality Labs - aka tested by Microsoft to make sure it functions correctly in their operating system. For average use on a non-fucked system, these drivers should not crash.


The testing confirms that the driver meets certain standards and requirements.

It does not indicate a lack of crashing.  The driver testing is there to stop even worse shit from happening (again, stuff that hasn't been seen publicly in a while because measures were undertaken specifically to stop it).  These measures were started in 64-bit XP and are either a boon or a burden depending on who you are in the chain.  Things like corrupting the memory of other programs, snooping user data and sending it out, there's all sorts of things (purposeful and accidental) drivers can do (as they run above the standard user rights level) if they're not kept in check.

Of course, if companies are coding to these standards for everything except 32-bit XP, then of course the higher quality of software is going to affect anything they make for 32-bit XP as well.



PityOnU said:


> 1. I am not seeing this list of new programs you keep referring to.


Why should I go out of my way and make you a list just to have you say "I don't use any of those so they don't matter"? 



PityOnU said:


> 2. Less crashes is arguable, especially after Windows XP installations have been in place for such a long time where as a new Windows 7 install would require the testing and ironing out of a number of bugs with things like driver and network support.


No, less crashes from drivers is NOT arguable.

http://static.usenix.org/event/lisa06/tech/full_papers/ganapathi/ganapathi.pdf


> We found that OS crashes are predominantly caused by poorly-written device driver code.
> [...]
> An OS crash occurs at kernel-level, and is usually
> caused by memory corruption, bad drivers or faulty
> ...


However with Vista/7/8, a graphics driver crash (which can still happen) cannot cause a BSoD because it's not hooked into the kernel.  You just get something like this instead.











I could probably find other studies and statistics as well.  Whenever Windows crashes, it (by default) makes a crash dump file with info on what was going on at the time.  If the issue is a driver or system file, it only takes seconds to find which one caused the crash.  Hell, go to C:\Windows\Minidump\ on your personal machine, and if there's any dump files in there than that machine has crashed, and I can tell you whether it was a driver, known config issue, or hardware failure.

Basically I'm just saying that this info is easy to find out there because Windows logs it, and people use the crash dumps to find what went wrong.  If something tends to go wrong for tons of people repeatedly, it's going to become noticeable.  This is why Microsoft changed it with NT6, they realized that separating the drivers from the kernel itself would improve system stability by not allowing one third-party driver to crash everything else on the system at once.

There were also changes to the sound and networking system for stability, but they're not as drastic, and sound/networking drivers historically haven't had as many issues.



PityOnU said:


> 3. Third-party driver stability has nothing to do with the OS, and shit drivers will still crash your system. Especially new drivers for new hardware that works with your new OS.


Have you not been reading?  In Vista/7/8, a graphics driver crash will NOT crash your system.  I have said that multiple times already as it's one of the biggest upsides.



PityOnU said:


> 4. "I'm really glad my company upgraded the OS, not I can listen to Pandora at 45% volume while I watch YouTube videos at 63% volume." Said no one ever.


"I don't need something so I assume nobody else does!"

I bring up the volume mixer _every single day_ to individually lower the volume of and mute games and certain programs.  For example I play Warframe online while skyping with friends, and one of them keeps his mic volume low because he's in a college dorm.  Because of this, the game's sound overpowers his voice.  With the volume mixer, I can quickly reduce the game's sound so it doesn't overpower his voice and we can communicate while playing.  In addition, sometimes I leave games running in the background, and will want to lower to mute them in order to watch a youtube video, without having to kill the game totally and then bring it back up after.

The benefits to multiple volume levels holds true for recording as well.  I often have to tweak the volume levels of individual programs when I'm making a tutorial, recording server gameplay with people over teamspeak, showing off a game hack I made, playing a private session over Skype, filing a bug report, showing off a ROM hack somebody made, or any number of things where I don't want one audio source to overpower another.



PityOnU said:


> True! Very true! But if the system works as is, why decide that NOW is the best time to gut and rewrite everything? I guess it just so happens that retire FORTRAN programmers are all available this year, and happen to now be familiar with .NET.


It has to happen eventually.  People tend to only cave in and change something when it stops working at all, which is why it often takes so long that nobody remembers how it worked in the first place.



PityOnU said:


> I cannot argue with any of your responses as they are true, but no where in your responses do you say that businesses upgraded to Windows 7 just because it was good/better for them than XP. As a matter of fact, it seems like the strongest reason you cite for a company to upgrade is because they are forced to by Microsoft or its partners who refuse to continue to support the old OS.


I'm not talking about additional Microsoft software, but there's other things that need the new systems.  New VM software, new VPN software, things like that that even businesses would require.



PityOnU said:


> So is the real reason companies upgrade their OS because they absolutely have to, and that the point at which this occurs is generally every other release of the OS?


For the first one, it holds true for software in general.  Replacement is a costly job in general (time, manpower, etc.), and becomes multiple times more costly and time-consuming if you only hire tech-illterates. 

On a more serious note, Windows doesn't have a set release schedule, many places upgraded to Vista, then started moving machines to 7 (due to the relatively-short timespan between them), and will have a mix of the two, for example.


----------



## PityOnU (Apr 26, 2013)

Rydian said:


> http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/grasping.html
> 
> The testing confirms that the driver meets certain standards and requirements.
> 
> ...


 
Very well.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a Microsoft Certified System Engineer, and a Windows 7 Technology Specialist. I've attended the //build/ conference for the past two years running, and am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering.

I am well aware of all of the benefits of Windows 8 over Windows 7 over Windows XP. I am also aware that in an ideal environment, businesses and consumers should try their best to adopt the new OS as quickly as possible. I just get sick of hearing how people justify Windows 7 as being "that good" because businesses all adopted it.

Businesses didn't adopt Windows 7 because they loved it and wanted to make sweet sexy lovetimes with it! They did it because they absolutely had to. They had no choice! New hardware and *some* new software no longer supported XP, and the maintenance costs of their old workstations were too high because of it. Also, at the 5 or 6 year mark, things start to physically break.

Businesses would have adopted Vista just as much if Windows 7 had not come out when it did! Wake up people!


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 26, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> One of peoples main issues, is that it WAS there in the pre-release, then MS in their ultimate wisdom, removed it, taking away peoples choice, a choice that they had expected to be there in the final release because it was shown to them.



You are aware that all they are adding is a Start button that opens Metro righ?


----------



## spinal_cord (Apr 27, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> You are aware that all they are adding is a Start button that opens Metro righ?


And thus no longer forcing metro on the many people who dont like it.

Metro would work fine, if it was a second menu, rather than the main screen, that is, a user would launch metro to select an app, rather than a user having to launch 'desktop' to do traditional tasks. The launchpad on osx is a good example of how to use such a menu without forcing it on the people that dont want it.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 27, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> And thus no longer forcing metro on the many people who dont like it.



Thanks for pointing out the obvious good sir.


----------



## YayMii (Apr 28, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> And thus no longer forcing metro on the many people who dont like it.
> 
> Metro would work fine, if it was a second menu, rather than the main screen, that is, a user would launch metro to select an app, rather than a user having to launch 'desktop' to do traditional tasks. The launchpad on osx is a good example of how to use such a menu without forcing it on the people that dont want it.


1. They're still technically "forcing Metro", since the Start screen will still be the same.
2. Metro isn't really the "main screen" (especially on a desktop/laptop). The desktop is always open in the background, it just happens that Microsoft decided that the Start screen should open first upon login, which seems to be confusing a lot of people.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 28, 2013)

YayMii said:


> it just happens that Microsoft decided that the Start screen should open first upon login, which seems to be confusing a lot of people.


 
Interesting isn't it? Pretty much every other multi-function device in the world boots up straight into the menu. Yet people are confused when a computer, the most multi-functional device of all time, does it?

And pretty much the first thing you need to do when you get to desktop is click 'start' anyway (so you can actually, you know, DO something)... actually having the start screen first *removes* an unnecessary step (clicking 'start' for the first time)


----------



## Rydian (Apr 28, 2013)

Android and IOS boot into a desktop last I checked.

The devices I can think of that don't boot into any sort of desktop or icon-based thing immediately are single-purpose devices like camcorders, digital cameras, etc.  They know that they should boot to their main use as soon as they can.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 28, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Android and IOS boot into a desktop last I checked.
> 
> The devices I can think of that don't boot into any sort of desktop or icon-based thing immediately are single-purpose devices like camcorders, digital cameras, etc.  They know that they should boot to their main use as soon as they can.



Metro also posses the same functionality as those devices menu offers them, the only difference with them is they also lack a need of searching for respective programs, as often they are either a flick or button press away.

Also, I think on iOS its called the Springboard.


----------



## Pleng (Apr 28, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Android and IOS boot into a desktop last I checked.


 
I guess it depends on your definition of desktop. I would call the Android home screens advanced menus. They have icons and, yea, widgets... but I certainly don't see any overlapping apps. I haven't had much use of iOS devices, and certainly not for years, but isn't the home screen on that just a great big list of installed apps... that's pretty much a menu, if you ask me.

Wii, 3DS (presumably XBOX and PS3??) all boot up into a menu. Or do you class those as desktops too?


----------



## Rydian (Apr 28, 2013)

Pleng said:


> I guess it depends on your definition of desktop. I would call the Android home screens advanced menus. They have icons and, yea, widgets... but I certainly don't see any overlapping apps. I haven't had much use of iOS devices, and certainly not for years, but isn't the home screen on that just a great big list of installed apps... that's pretty much a menu, if you ask me.


You can have multiple apps on-screen at once.  Some video players can launch a new window so you can watch a video overtop of a portion of your web browser, I use some game hacking tools that give me a toggleable overlay over the game where I have basic peek/poke and search functions, and so on.

It's just most apps don't because most apps aren't really intended for multitasking.  Android started as a pretty basic phone OS and has to run on relatively-low power machines, so the people with hardware _and need_ to multitask on Android are relatively few.



Pleng said:


> Wii, 3DS (presumably XBOX and PS3??) all boot up into a menu. Or do you class those as desktops too?


The Wii for one has no OS, the system menu is just the default program that runs (and yes, this means that every official game has it's own copy of the Wii "home menu" built-in, it's in the SDK and Nintendo's guidelines), and it's used to boot into other programs.

The other systems have the same sort of setup, except on a technical level they actually have an OS and thus can do fancy overlay things... but they all aim for the same basic goal of having the home menu be the first thing you see, and what you return to when you kill the primary running program.

And that's how most people use a desktop.  You see the desktop when you start, you launch apps, and when you close your apps you see the desktop again.  Metro is another iteration of the desktop and is intended to do most of the same functions with this basic shared overview in mind, it's just a lot of the changes and design choices have been sub-par.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 16, 2013)

Another thing I don't like, they intend the metro screen to be your main screen but... The trackpad on my laptop has a whole bunch of features that would benefit, such as using multitouch to scroll in both directions (horisontal/vertical), it works perfectly fine in desktop, but for some insane reason, only up/down scrolling works on the metro screen, not only that but up/down scrolling scrolls side to side!!!! who on earth thought up that little trick!?!


----------



## YayMii (May 16, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> Another thing I don't like, they intend the metro screen to be your main screen but... The trackpad on my laptop has a whole bunch of features that would benefit, such as using multitouch to scroll in both directions (horisontal/vertical), it works perfectly fine in desktop, but for some insane reason, only up/down scrolling works on the metro screen, not only that but up/down scrolling scrolls side to side!!!! who on earth thought up that little trick!?!


They did that so you could scroll through your Start menu with a mouse. But usually, trackpad drivers designed for Windows 8 are able to handle proper multitouch capabilities (such as swiping across from the right to open up the Charms menu, and of course, proper horizontal scrolling).


----------

