4 ms·

I would have already upgraded to Win8 if it had a real desktop with a real start menu for my dual 27-inchers instead of a friggin touch interface designed for a

by smegel 14y ago

I would have already upgraded to Win8 if it had a real desktop with a real start menu for my dual 27-inchers instead of a friggin touch interface designed for a tablet. Seriously, i don't know what they were smoking when they came up with that one. I still get moderately excited by new Windows stuff, after all the PC is not dead yet and i still enjoy building up a dream rig from scratch, even though i probably spend more time on my various Android devices.

chimeracoder 14y ago
> I would have already upgraded to Win8 if it had a real desktop with a real start menu for my dual 27-inchers instead of a friggin touch interface designed for a tablet. Walking into Best Buy today, I noticed that almost all the computers had touchscreens. Even the few that also had keyboards in front of them lacked mice. They're clearly betting on the hypothesis that computers in 2/5/10 years won't have mice, those having been replaced altogether by all-in-one monitors. In other words, I don't think the intent is to get Windows 8 installed on existing hardware. I think the intent is to get Windows 8[1] to dominate (and perhaps even drive) new sales. [1] Or, more likely, the successor to Windows 8 - Microsoft customers have always had a pattern of 'skip one, upgrade one', and even without the redesign, Windows 8 falls on one of the 'off' cycles as it is.
- smegel 14y ago
  Are you saying there were desktop PCs without keyboards? How does that even work?
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    You'd be surprised how little most non-geeks use the keyboard for much of what they do. Heck, even geeks use tablets for a lot of daily work. In any case, I think this was just for display purposes. The touchscreen is intended more to replace the mouse than to replace the keyboard - at least for now.
- visualcsharp 14y ago
  I, as well as most of my friends and family, beg to differ. We have no desire to be touching screens a few feet in front of us, smudging them, and contracting a nice case of RSI in our shoulders, as well.
lessnonymous 14y ago
I bought Start8 for about $5. Works brilliantly. It also disables most of the full-screening crap Windows 8 tries to shove down your throat. I understand full screen on a tablet, but on a 27" monitor with no 'touch'? WTF?
MichaelGG 14y ago
The desktop is the same, and the start menu acts the same: Press the winkey, and start typing. Are you really saying as an advanced user, you spend a lot of time using the mouse and clicking around the start menu? Really? The only time the new UI really sucks is when using remote servers via RDP. Someone should be sacked for the decision to metro-ize Windows Server. It just makes you do complicated mouse movements, as the winkey gets sent to the host box except in fullscreen. The part I'm hesitant about is the ugly "flat" look. In Win7 and Vista, Aero was a premium feature you had to pay extra for. Now they just stripped that, and we're left with window chrome that looks like your palette just took a bit depth reduction.
- smegel 14y ago
  It doesn't have a start menu at all from what I've seen, unless you are referring to that full screen abomination called metro. I use the start menu fairly often, and the mouse constantly i guess. I'm not sure I've ever seen a windows user who doesn't do the same.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    Honestly, the metro interface is a bad and the people who made it should probably not work in design any more. But from the typical power user perspective it offers identical functionality to Win+"program_prefix"+Enter. I haven't found it impedes me significantly.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    The start menu has been essentially remapped to a metro layout. It still behaves just like the old start menu, it's just metro in layout and appearance. (Yes, it does take over the screen when you call it, but it disappears once you launch something)
    - summerdown2 14y ago
      I've never used windows 8, but everything I hear about it makes me not want to. Is it true it covers the screen in tiles? My approach to windows 7 and osx is to have constantly changing screen backgrounds and as few icons as possible. Why would I want to cover that up? Put another way, why would I want to go from this: http://forums.unixhub.net/boards/b/src/1348934524725.jpg http://forums.unixhub.net/boards/b/src/1348934524725.jpg To this: http://www.superutils.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3-win-eight-metro-ui-switcher-new-start-screen.png http://www.superutils.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3-win-e...
sahaskatta 14y ago
I've got Windows 8 running on dual-monitor setup and I predominantly used the traditional desktop interface. I have to say the experience is significantly better than Windows 7. Not only are the performance improvements for boot/resume/shutdown vastly faster, but the desktop UI now natively offers fine tune control of placing taskbars on each display. You now also get control configuring backgrounds independently on each screen, spanning across both, or having both be the same. I don't use the new ui for work, but I do find it very useful to quickly check things like weather, read news, etc since its incredibly fast. The biggest fundamental flaw I came across is the fact that you can't have metro apps open on multiple monitors simultaneously. Definitely an odd decision.
- smegel 14y ago
  Sure, there's lots to like about Windows8 and as soon as they fix the "traditional" desktop (rumored to be in SP1) I will upgrade for sure. But not until metro is a completely optional interface i can fully ignore (or pray even uninstall).
  - Zr40 14y ago
    Metro already is completely optional. The only difference you'll notice is the start screen which replaces the start menu. There's even third party software (like Classic Shell or Start8) that disables the start screen and replaces it with a menu. Don't let the start screen be the only thing stopping you from upgrading to Windows 8. Give it a shot, and if you don't like it, use third party software to replace it.

by smegel 14y ago

chimeracoder 14y ago

> I would have already upgraded to Win8 if it had a real desktop with a real start menu for my dual 27-inchers instead of a friggin touch interface designed for a tablet. Walking into Best Buy today, I noticed that almost all the computers had touchscreens. Even the few that also had keyboards in front of them lacked mice. They're clearly betting on the hypothesis that computers in 2/5/10 years won't have mice, those having been replaced altogether by all-in-one monitors. In other words, I don't think the intent is to get Windows 8 installed on existing hardware. I think the intent is to get Windows 8[1] to dominate (and perhaps even drive) new sales. [1] Or, more likely, the successor to Windows 8 - Microsoft customers have always had a pattern of 'skip one, upgrade one', and even without the redesign, Windows 8 falls on one of the 'off' cycles as it is.

smegel 14y ago
Are you saying there were desktop PCs without keyboards? How does that even work?
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  You'd be surprised how little most non-geeks use the keyboard for much of what they do. Heck, even geeks use tablets for a lot of daily work. In any case, I think this was just for display purposes. The touchscreen is intended more to replace the mouse than to replace the keyboard - at least for now.
visualcsharp 14y ago
I, as well as most of my friends and family, beg to differ. We have no desire to be touching screens a few feet in front of us, smudging them, and contracting a nice case of RSI in our shoulders, as well.

lessnonymous 14y ago

I bought Start8 for about $5. Works brilliantly. It also disables most of the full-screening crap Windows 8 tries to shove down your throat. I understand full screen on a tablet, but on a 27" monitor with no 'touch'? WTF?

MichaelGG 14y ago

The desktop is the same, and the start menu acts the same: Press the winkey, and start typing. Are you really saying as an advanced user, you spend a lot of time using the mouse and clicking around the start menu? Really? The only time the new UI really sucks is when using remote servers via RDP. Someone should be sacked for the decision to metro-ize Windows Server. It just makes you do complicated mouse movements, as the winkey gets sent to the host box except in fullscreen. The part I'm hesitant about is the ugly "flat" look. In Win7 and Vista, Aero was a premium feature you had to pay extra for. Now they just stripped that, and we're left with window chrome that looks like your palette just took a bit depth reduction.

smegel 14y ago
It doesn't have a start menu at all from what I've seen, unless you are referring to that full screen abomination called metro. I use the start menu fairly often, and the mouse constantly i guess. I'm not sure I've ever seen a windows user who doesn't do the same.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  Honestly, the metro interface is a bad and the people who made it should probably not work in design any more. But from the typical power user perspective it offers identical functionality to Win+"program_prefix"+Enter. I haven't found it impedes me significantly.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  The start menu has been essentially remapped to a metro layout. It still behaves just like the old start menu, it's just metro in layout and appearance. (Yes, it does take over the screen when you call it, but it disappears once you launch something)
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    I've never used windows 8, but everything I hear about it makes me not want to. Is it true it covers the screen in tiles? My approach to windows 7 and osx is to have constantly changing screen backgrounds and as few icons as possible. Why would I want to cover that up? Put another way, why would I want to go from this: http://forums.unixhub.net/boards/b/src/1348934524725.jpg http://forums.unixhub.net/boards/b/src/1348934524725.jpg To this: http://www.superutils.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3-win-eight-metro-ui-switcher-new-start-screen.png http://www.superutils.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3-win-e...

sahaskatta 14y ago

I've got Windows 8 running on dual-monitor setup and I predominantly used the traditional desktop interface. I have to say the experience is significantly better than Windows 7. Not only are the performance improvements for boot/resume/shutdown vastly faster, but the desktop UI now natively offers fine tune control of placing taskbars on each display. You now also get control configuring backgrounds independently on each screen, spanning across both, or having both be the same. I don't use the new ui for work, but I do find it very useful to quickly check things like weather, read news, etc since its incredibly fast. The biggest fundamental flaw I came across is the fact that you can't have metro apps open on multiple monitors simultaneously. Definitely an odd decision.

smegel 14y ago
Sure, there's lots to like about Windows8 and as soon as they fix the "traditional" desktop (rumored to be in SP1) I will upgrade for sure. But not until metro is a completely optional interface i can fully ignore (or pray even uninstall).
- Zr40 14y ago
  Metro already is completely optional. The only difference you'll notice is the start screen which replaces the start menu. There's even third party software (like Classic Shell or Start8) that disables the start screen and replaces it with a menu. Don't let the start screen be the only thing stopping you from upgrading to Windows 8. Give it a shot, and if you don't like it, use third party software to replace it.