dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed


plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to Michail

Re: [WIN8] Windows 8 --- What benifits over W7-64?

said by Michail:

They could have left the tablet interface there and just not forced it to be used on a desktop. There is a reason I'm using a desktop and not a tablet.

The whole Metro interface has been beaten to death on this forum and others like it since it was introduced in the first preview release.

While it would have been nice if Microsoft gave the end user an option (Default to Metro, but allow user to switch back to Win 7 version), the downside is you get the reaction you did in Windows XP. XP defaulted to a "new" start menu GUI, and upon install, most people went in and modified it to look like it did in Windows 2000. I was one of those people, and I know the company I worked for at the time we rolled out XP did the same thing.

Then there is the side that Microsoft wants to try to have the same interface on all your devices, regardless of what it is (the whole reason behind Metro, as far as I can tell). If you're using a Windows Phone, Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop, Surface Table, or Laptop, your "User Interface" is the same. That's great for someone who has never used any of them, as the ability to move between hardware is easy. However, for someone who has used them all, and is able to learn and understand the differences between each, it makes things difficult.

While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

So, I feel Microsoft is in a sort of "rock and a hard place" with this. The question they probably asked themselves is which group of people do we upset? That can be a tough decision to make, as every person is your customer, and if at all possible, you don't want to upset any customer.

Finally, there is the side of this that goes along with change. Its a new version, new interface. You either adapt and learn, or you get left behind.

I'm all for change, and while I was one in the beginning who hated Metro when I first saw it, once I actually sat down and started to use Windows 8 on a daily basis, it actually was OK. I figured out how to make Metro do what I want it to for the way I use windows. While I am not currently running Windows 8 due to an incompatibility with McAfee Enterprise 8.8 (as I noted above), once McAfee releases its next version that runs on Windows 8, I'll make the jump, and be very happy about it.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


Michail
Premium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1
I actually loved the new GUI and start menu when they first came out. I could see the personal benefits to the changes.

Windows 8 got worse for me after a clean install. That gave me the perspective of what most new users will experience. I'll get it fixed back up and be fine. But I know I'll have plenty of time to put in with friends and family when/if they upgrade.

It's just my opinion that MS should include the tablet interface as an optional shell on the desktop. They need to win the tablet market over, not force the desktop market to into a tablet paradigm.

I really do get what they are trying to do. I also get the desktop is sort of "dead". I just don't agree with the way it's being done or the lack polish and refinement.

Once this hits the general public and press it's going to go over poorly.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to plencnerb
You make some interesting points.

I will refer to what I said earlier about Apple presumably moving to an annual OS X update cycle. Ill also add that Apple has seemingly been moving towards merging OS X and iOS at least on a cosmetic UI level. If Microsoft had adopted an equally aggressive upgrade cycle they would have been able to make more subtle changes in a three year timeframe rather then a "like it or lump it" compulsory Metro interface within one OS revision.

However, if it weren’t compulsory many would simply sidestep it as you pointed out.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

Yes! This is exactly the point!

The same thing happened with the ribbon bar in MS Office. Given the choice, most users would not use it. Why? Because, for experienced users, it actually reduces their productivity. The ribbon bar is still having a negative impact on my productivity in programs like Excel.

This is a marketing decision, not a usability decision. The interface formerly known as Metro is a one-size-fits-none solution imposed by a company that is once again releasing a "Me Too" product that is too little and too late. The only way that they can ensure adoption is to impose adoption on hapless desktop users.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

... there is the side that Microsoft wants to try to have the same interface on all your devices, regardless of what it is (the whole reason behind Metro, as far as I can tell). If you're using a Windows Phone, Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop, Surface Table, or Laptop, your "User Interface" is the same.

The strategm of aiming for the same interface on all devices is a Microsoft corporate tactical decision designed to increase market share/dominance across those devices... to my observation, it has not been "demanded" by users in the marketplace, particularly the desktop-using universe.
said by plencnerb:

... While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

If users were to largely opt out of the Metro UI, then it would certainly prove it was never demanded by them. Instead, removal of choice is proof positive of Microsoft placing their corporate strategy ahead of meeting many users' wants/needs in their product. Not providing the user the opportunity to select their interface smacks of corporate arrogance: Microsoft will drag users kicking and screaming into a world that is dominated by Microsoft's one-size-fits-all corporate strategm aimed at cross-market domination, regardless of the wants and needs of a whole class of desktop users whose productivity will seriously suffer as a result. This is the same pathway they chose with the ribbon concept in Office products, and at least for some time, user productivity has suffered... but that's not a cost element Microsoft has to deal with; instead, users have to.
said by plencnerb:

... So, I feel Microsoft is in a sort of "rock and a hard place" with this. The question they probably asked themselves is which group of people do we upset? That can be a tough decision to make, as every person is your customer, and if at all possible, you don't want to upset any customer.

The only rock and hard place Microsoft is in has been a place they've chosen to put themselves. Nowhere is there written some natural requirement that all products must have the same interfaces. When I use a phone, I don't expect it to look or work just like an FM radio, nor do I expect a desktop computer to look or work just like a cell phone. In areas where their usages do overlap, there's no reason on earth why the interfaces can't be similar in those usage cases. But an interface that makes sense on a handheld (with its micro-display) makes no inherent sense on a computer used for... computing.
said by plencnerb:

... Finally, there is the side of this that goes along with change. Its a new version, new interface. You either adapt and learn, or you get left behind.

I have no inherent problem with change, other than that it costs. So I want that cost to be truly needful, not just to enhance the corporate master strategy of somebody else. Whenever a major change is made in how work is done, especially repetitive work like usually performed on a computer, there is both an immediate and a lingering negative impact on efficiency in doing that work... and loss of efficiency carries a cost in time, output, and dollars. This was one of the most immediate negative impacts in the business environment from MS switching Office software to the ribbon instead of menus, and it will have a similar costly impact in changing how the desktop looks and acts. But Microsoft will not experience the costs... its users will. Unless the changes to how a class of software has long worked are truly necessary for sound, cost-effective, technical reasons, they will result in wasted resources. It should prove illuminating to watch how readily business accepts Windows8, considering the negative impact to corporate user training and ongoing productivity.

A real question is what the tangible, real-world benefits of Win8 might be? Especially to the desktop using world, particularly those whose computer usage is heavily into "computing", business, etc.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1
reply to Glen T
said by Glen T:

The same thing happened with the ribbon bar in MS Office. Given the choice, most users would not use it. Why? Because, for experienced users, it actually reduces their productivity. The ribbon bar is still having a negative impact on my productivity in programs like Excel.

This is a marketing decision, not a usability decision. The interface formerly known as Metro is a one-size-fits-none solution imposed by a company that is once again releasing a "Me Too" product that is too little and too late. The only way that they can ensure adoption is to impose adoption on hapless desktop users.

I agree completely - I hate the ribbon bar and Metro and I don't see any reason to have to forget everything I know about Windows and Office every time somebody in Redmond get's the bright idea to change the interface for no reason that benefits the customer. As far as I'm concerned Metro is MS Bob 2013 and will have exactly the same level of acceptance in the corporate world.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--