7 ms·

Meh, the interface makes no sense without a touchscreen.

by mikeratcliffe 14y ago

clone1018 14y ago
Have you tried it?
- el_cuadrado 14y ago
  I have. The interface is freaking unusable. It is like Microsoft decided to exit the desktop market with a bang. "We are failing, and we are taking Windows with us".
  - shortlived 14y ago
    There is no way out of the "metro" interface? Clarification: I assumed el_cuadrado was refering to metro being "unusable". Is that true?
    - sukuriant 14y ago
      To run desktop apps, you can go to the desktop. I've been using it as my primary OS for several months now Disclosure: MSFT Employee
      - douglasisshiny 14y ago
        I recently bought a laptop and it's the first time I've had windows on my home machine since 2004. Since it's only $15 to upgrade: Is it possible/easy to upgrade and go back to Windows 7 if I find it detestable?
        dangrossman 14y ago
        Going back means using the restore disks or partitions that came with your computer, or installing fresh from a retail DVD of a previous OS. There's no "downgrade" process.
    - clone1018 14y ago
      Of course, 1% of your time is spent in Metro if you use it on a desktop, and that's generally when you're searching for something.
  - clone1018 14y ago
    To each his own I guess, the only time I ever use the Metro UI is when I'm searching for something, which usually consists of hitting the start button, searching "Chrome" (for google chrome) and then hitting enter. Any other time that I've used the interface it was just for development or testing. How often do you see yourself using it?
  - dschobel 14y ago
    failing? MS has been holding 70% to 85% of the desktop market for decades, even by conservative estimates.
    - glennsl 14y ago
      They also used to focus on the desktop market. Now they focus on the tablet market, to the point of sacrificing the desktop user experience to gain entrance to that market. That might prove to be a big mistake.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Windows XP - success Windows Vista - failure Windows 7 - success Windows 8 - potential failure Just following a pattern.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      That pattern only holds if you think that the world started at Windows XP. Going back another few years: Windows 3.1 - Success Windows 95 - Success Windows 98 - Success (moderate, whatever) Windows NT 4 - Success Windows Me - Failure Windows 2000 - Success
      - bduerst 14y ago
        We're talking about Microsoft here! What about DOS?
        MartinCron 14y ago
        I was talking about Windows, actually. I do remember some versions of MS-DOS being marginally better than others, but I don't think it had any predictable cadence.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        If you switch that metric from good/bad instead of success/failure, it makes more sense. Something doesn't have to have been objectively good to be sucessful. Here's how I remember it: 3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time. 95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that. 98 improved on this and added a lot. Good. ME was utter dogshit. Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP. XP was awesome Vista was horrid. 7 was awesome Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck. It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.
    - rossjudson 14y ago
      I see Vista characterized as a failure over and over again, and Win 7 as a success. Win 7 is somewhat better than Vista, but the distance between them isn't that great. Besides the fact that UAC prompts were more frequent in Vista, was there some particular problem with Vista? For a year or two there I was running workstations with both, and didn't see much difference. I think Vista took the heat for imposing security where none existed.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    The interface is freaking unusable. It's funny that I keep hearing people say this, yet hundreds of thousands of people are using it just fine before it's even released. A large number of them even using it as their daily OS. This indicates to me that it is usable. Perhaps by "unusable", some people really just mean "different than I'm used to"? Because to me, unusable means impossible to use, which we know isn't true.
Iaks 14y ago
Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Why then do I give myself (actually, pay for) a headache with this new release?
- aik 14y ago
  >> Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Sounds like another anti-innovation/change comment on hn. If this is not, please tell me how?
  - dendory 14y ago
    How is changing the desktop we currently have, which works for most people and everyone is used to, for a completely new system that is clearly meant for a device other than the PC, innovation? Change != always good.
    - untog 14y ago
      I think he was just pointing out that Hacker News can be somewhat schizophrenic on this topic. "WTF why won't Craigslist improve, it is anti-innovation" vs. "Why did MS change their UI?!?" And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.
      - viscanti 14y ago
        I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.
        HelloMcFly 14y ago
        But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard. If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.

Meh, the interface makes no sense without a touchscreen.

clone1018 14y ago

Have you tried it?

el_cuadrado 14y ago
I have. The interface is freaking unusable. It is like Microsoft decided to exit the desktop market with a bang. "We are failing, and we are taking Windows with us".
- shortlived 14y ago
  There is no way out of the "metro" interface? Clarification: I assumed el_cuadrado was refering to metro being "unusable". Is that true?
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    To run desktop apps, you can go to the desktop. I've been using it as my primary OS for several months now Disclosure: MSFT Employee
    - douglasisshiny 14y ago
      I recently bought a laptop and it's the first time I've had windows on my home machine since 2004. Since it's only $15 to upgrade: Is it possible/easy to upgrade and go back to Windows 7 if I find it detestable?
      - dangrossman 14y ago
        Going back means using the restore disks or partitions that came with your computer, or installing fresh from a retail DVD of a previous OS. There's no "downgrade" process.
  - clone1018 14y ago
    Of course, 1% of your time is spent in Metro if you use it on a desktop, and that's generally when you're searching for something.
- clone1018 14y ago
  To each his own I guess, the only time I ever use the Metro UI is when I'm searching for something, which usually consists of hitting the start button, searching "Chrome" (for google chrome) and then hitting enter. Any other time that I've used the interface it was just for development or testing. How often do you see yourself using it?
- dschobel 14y ago
  failing? MS has been holding 70% to 85% of the desktop market for decades, even by conservative estimates.
  - glennsl 14y ago
    They also used to focus on the desktop market. Now they focus on the tablet market, to the point of sacrificing the desktop user experience to gain entrance to that market. That might prove to be a big mistake.
- dmix 14y ago
  Windows XP - success Windows Vista - failure Windows 7 - success Windows 8 - potential failure Just following a pattern.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    That pattern only holds if you think that the world started at Windows XP. Going back another few years: Windows 3.1 - Success Windows 95 - Success Windows 98 - Success (moderate, whatever) Windows NT 4 - Success Windows Me - Failure Windows 2000 - Success
    - bduerst 14y ago
      We're talking about Microsoft here! What about DOS?
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        I was talking about Windows, actually. I do remember some versions of MS-DOS being marginally better than others, but I don't think it had any predictable cadence.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      If you switch that metric from good/bad instead of success/failure, it makes more sense. Something doesn't have to have been objectively good to be sucessful. Here's how I remember it: 3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time. 95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that. 98 improved on this and added a lot. Good. ME was utter dogshit. Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP. XP was awesome Vista was horrid. 7 was awesome Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck. It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.
  - rossjudson 14y ago
    I see Vista characterized as a failure over and over again, and Win 7 as a success. Win 7 is somewhat better than Vista, but the distance between them isn't that great. Besides the fact that UAC prompts were more frequent in Vista, was there some particular problem with Vista? For a year or two there I was running workstations with both, and didn't see much difference. I think Vista took the heat for imposing security where none existed.
- freehunter 14y ago
  The interface is freaking unusable. It's funny that I keep hearing people say this, yet hundreds of thousands of people are using it just fine before it's even released. A large number of them even using it as their daily OS. This indicates to me that it is usable. Perhaps by "unusable", some people really just mean "different than I'm used to"? Because to me, unusable means impossible to use, which we know isn't true.

Iaks 14y ago

Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Why then do I give myself (actually, pay for) a headache with this new release?

aik 14y ago
>> Exacerbating this is the fact that Windows 7 is arguably at full stride right now and has almost no points that I really want changed. Sounds like another anti-innovation/change comment on hn. If this is not, please tell me how?
- dendory 14y ago
  How is changing the desktop we currently have, which works for most people and everyone is used to, for a completely new system that is clearly meant for a device other than the PC, innovation? Change != always good.
  - untog 14y ago
    I think he was just pointing out that Hacker News can be somewhat schizophrenic on this topic. "WTF why won't Craigslist improve, it is anti-innovation" vs. "Why did MS change their UI?!?" And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.
    - viscanti 14y ago
      I think the difference is between things that work don't need to be changed, just for the sake of change. Things that are broken, or suffer from poor usability should change. Not everything needs to change, but I think it's fair to want broken things to change without advocating that everything change just because.
      - HelloMcFly 14y ago
        But that's so short-sighted! You know what worked? The Motorola RAZR. But then the iPhone came out and it was a radical change and, even though many said at the time "I just need to make calls and text", it set the standard. If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.