8 ms·

I don't understand the thinking here: are they abandoning business users? People use their computers in very different ways, and while a user may have a window

I don't understand the thinking here: are they abandoning business users? People use their computers in very different ways, and while a user may have a windows PC at work and an iPad at home, that doesn't mean they want to "do work" on the iPad. In many cases they actually hate the idea. Secondly, I get the feeling that many windows users are still 100% windows because that's what they know. Microsoft seems insistant on forcing users to re-learn the OS at every release. I can't help but think this is what makes more and more think, "well, if I have to learn a new OS I should try out those apples/Linux that everyone loves to talk about". That can't be good from a Microsoft pov.

powertower 15y ago
> I don't understand the thinking here: If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. You can set the desktop to be default on bootup. And I'm 90% sure this is how home computers will ship from DELL. While tablets will be Metro. The desktop is not going anywhere, MS has simply re-aligned the default UI to cater for the mass-market: the consumers that want to browser youtube, check the email, tweet, etc. > Microsoft seems insistant on forcing users to re-learn the OS at every release. IMO, they are insistent on improving their products.
- king_magic 15y ago
  > If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. \ If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. The problem with this is that the "new" desktop is fundamentally different from the old one. It's not as simple as saying "oh, just use the desktop". > IMO, they are insistent on improving their products. I wouldn't consider presenting users with a puzzle to be an improvement. I can pick up my iPad and instantly figure it out. I can pick up a MacBook Air with iOS-like features and instantly understand how they work. I was stunned at how much effort was required to learn Windows 8. Absolutely stunned. How exactly is that an improvement? By the same token, I can pick up a Windows Phone 7 device and instantly understand how to use it - but Windows 8 still somehow turned out to be a confusing mess with a mouse/keyboard. Even on a touchscreen device - it's not completely clear how things work. It was as confusing to use as a Blackberry Playbook.
  - powertower 15y ago
    > The problem with this is that the "new" desktop is fundamentally different from the old one. If you can't figure out how to use the desktop without the start button (by going to the left-right sides with a mouse movement that is even easier to do), then you really should be using the Metro UI instead, because it was made exactly for you. > I can pick up my iPad and instantly figure it out. 1. When I got my iPad it enraged me to learn/figure-out that I had to install iTunes and connect the two. 2. You're now comparing the touch based iPad UI with mouse/keyboard driven Windows 8 Desktop UI.
    - king_magic 15y ago
      1. You don't need a compute to use an iPad anymore. 2. It doesn't matter if it's apples-to-oranges as far as touch vs. mouse/keyboard - the key issue here is how understandable the UI is. Windows 7, if you know how to use a mouse and a keyboard, is completely understandable. Windows 8 makes absolutely no sense.
- glhaynes 15y ago
  If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. The line between "consumer" and "producer" is so fuzzy that this doesn't sound feasible to me. [For the record, I haven't used Windows 8 yet.] Both "types" of users—if we assume for argument's sake that such a distinction can even be made—tend to use a number of apps; each of those individual apps falls somewhere on a continuum of consumption vs. production. And even where each app falls on that continuum for that person may vary throughout the day! I expect there will continue to be tablets — and they should have tablet UIs — and there will continue to be "desktops" — and they should have desktop UIs. They should be made similar in aspects where it makes sense, kept different in those aspects where it doesn't, and there should definitely be many apps that run on both (with appropriately varying UIs depending on platform) and which constantly sync so that the users' production and consumption can flow between them as desired. If Microsoft pulls off a single system (even with two modes) that can transition without confusion and frustration between the two and that doesn't heavily compromise either one, then they'll have a very unique offering. But I don't think it's clear that such a goal is even achievable.
- Michiel 15y ago
  From what I can tell everyone is going to have to use the Metro UI because it has replaced the Start menu as the built-in launcher. There is also a new menu on the right side of the screen that let's you access search and settings among other things. So even producers must use some of the Metro UI on a daily basis. I predict we will see a number of utilities emerge in the next few months to emulate the Start menu or otherwise provide alternatives to the Metro UI for said tasks.
dpark 15y ago
> Microsoft seems insistant on forcing users to re-learn the OS at every release. When has Microsoft made this kind of switch before? Last time I recall this significant of a jump was 3.1 to 95. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee
- ugh 15y ago
  Microsoft didn’t before this. But now they do. It’s a surprising and daring move.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Last time was XP to Vista.
  - dpark 15y ago
    XP to Vista wasn't really a major change in terms of user interaction. They added UAC, which might be annoying, but followed existing interaction methods, so it was pretty obvious how to interact with it. Aero prettied up the UI, but the interaction wasn't actually changed by it. Snap added some new interactions, but the old actions were unchanged. What do you see as the changes that forced the user to "re-learn the OS"?
    - iso8859-1 15y ago
      Example: You need to search some folder and it's subdirectories for files. In WinXP you might do: Start->Find folders and files. Write search terms. Location Dropdown->"Browse..."->Find folder. Press search. Vista: Find the folder in Explorer, write your search terms in the search box in the upper right corner . This workflow wasn't changed for a long time, as far as I remember.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  Windows 95 wasn't hugely different than 3.1. The jump to Windows from DOS was much bigger. In both cases, the newer OS could seamlessly run applications written for the older one.

powertower 15y ago

> I don't understand the thinking here: If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. You can set the desktop to be default on bootup. And I'm 90% sure this is how home computers will ship from DELL. While tablets will be Metro. The desktop is not going anywhere, MS has simply re-aligned the default UI to cater for the mass-market: the consumers that want to browser youtube, check the email, tweet, etc. > Microsoft seems insistant on forcing users to re-learn the OS at every release. IMO, they are insistent on improving their products.

king_magic 15y ago
> If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. \ If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. The problem with this is that the "new" desktop is fundamentally different from the old one. It's not as simple as saying "oh, just use the desktop". > IMO, they are insistent on improving their products. I wouldn't consider presenting users with a puzzle to be an improvement. I can pick up my iPad and instantly figure it out. I can pick up a MacBook Air with iOS-like features and instantly understand how they work. I was stunned at how much effort was required to learn Windows 8. Absolutely stunned. How exactly is that an improvement? By the same token, I can pick up a Windows Phone 7 device and instantly understand how to use it - but Windows 8 still somehow turned out to be a confusing mess with a mouse/keyboard. Even on a touchscreen device - it's not completely clear how things work. It was as confusing to use as a Blackberry Playbook.
- powertower 15y ago
  > The problem with this is that the "new" desktop is fundamentally different from the old one. If you can't figure out how to use the desktop without the start button (by going to the left-right sides with a mouse movement that is even easier to do), then you really should be using the Metro UI instead, because it was made exactly for you. > I can pick up my iPad and instantly figure it out. 1. When I got my iPad it enraged me to learn/figure-out that I had to install iTunes and connect the two. 2. You're now comparing the touch based iPad UI with mouse/keyboard driven Windows 8 Desktop UI.
  - king_magic 15y ago
    1. You don't need a compute to use an iPad anymore. 2. It doesn't matter if it's apples-to-oranges as far as touch vs. mouse/keyboard - the key issue here is how understandable the UI is. Windows 7, if you know how to use a mouse and a keyboard, is completely understandable. Windows 8 makes absolutely no sense.
glhaynes 15y ago
If you're a consumer, you use the Metro UI. If you're a producer, you use the Desktop. The line between "consumer" and "producer" is so fuzzy that this doesn't sound feasible to me. [For the record, I haven't used Windows 8 yet.] Both "types" of users—if we assume for argument's sake that such a distinction can even be made—tend to use a number of apps; each of those individual apps falls somewhere on a continuum of consumption vs. production. And even where each app falls on that continuum for that person may vary throughout the day! I expect there will continue to be tablets — and they should have tablet UIs — and there will continue to be "desktops" — and they should have desktop UIs. They should be made similar in aspects where it makes sense, kept different in those aspects where it doesn't, and there should definitely be many apps that run on both (with appropriately varying UIs depending on platform) and which constantly sync so that the users' production and consumption can flow between them as desired. If Microsoft pulls off a single system (even with two modes) that can transition without confusion and frustration between the two and that doesn't heavily compromise either one, then they'll have a very unique offering. But I don't think it's clear that such a goal is even achievable.
Michiel 15y ago
From what I can tell everyone is going to have to use the Metro UI because it has replaced the Start menu as the built-in launcher. There is also a new menu on the right side of the screen that let's you access search and settings among other things. So even producers must use some of the Metro UI on a daily basis. I predict we will see a number of utilities emerge in the next few months to emulate the Start menu or otherwise provide alternatives to the Metro UI for said tasks.

dpark 15y ago

> Microsoft seems insistant on forcing users to re-learn the OS at every release. When has Microsoft made this kind of switch before? Last time I recall this significant of a jump was 3.1 to 95. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee

ugh 15y ago
Microsoft didn’t before this. But now they do. It’s a surprising and daring move.
kstenerud 15y ago
Last time was XP to Vista.
- dpark 15y ago
  XP to Vista wasn't really a major change in terms of user interaction. They added UAC, which might be annoying, but followed existing interaction methods, so it was pretty obvious how to interact with it. Aero prettied up the UI, but the interaction wasn't actually changed by it. Snap added some new interactions, but the old actions were unchanged. What do you see as the changes that forced the user to "re-learn the OS"?
  - iso8859-1 15y ago
    Example: You need to search some folder and it's subdirectories for files. In WinXP you might do: Start->Find folders and files. Write search terms. Location Dropdown->"Browse..."->Find folder. Press search. Vista: Find the folder in Explorer, write your search terms in the search box in the upper right corner . This workflow wasn't changed for a long time, as far as I remember.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
Windows 95 wasn't hugely different than 3.1. The jump to Windows from DOS was much bigger. In both cases, the newer OS could seamlessly run applications written for the older one.