• Windows 9 Hinted to Win Over Windows 7 Users
    529 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45319784]And yet, here you are using Google Chrome because you prefer it. Some people like using Windows Media Player, some people prefer foobar. A lot of people here, upon installing Windows, will go straight to Ninite.com and install Chrome or Firefox to replace Internet Explorer, Notepad++ to replace Notepad and Wordpad, CCCP + MPC:HC and foobar to replace Windows Media Player, 7-zip to replace Windows' built in compression utility, they will get Avast and replace MSE, and etc. They understand that computers are meant to be customized with a variety of different programs, that they will have to tweak their individual experience to get the most out of their computers. Yet the moment somebody suggests that maybe there's an external program that lets them tailor the UI to their exact tastes and preferences, the same people as before freak the fuck out. If people complain about having to install an external program to replace the UI, why do they go out and install Chrome to replace Internet Explorer? Why do they get all these other programs to replace Windows' built in functionality? What's with this hypocrisy? Why are people suddenly against customization when it comes time to discuss the Windows start menu?[/QUOTE] This is probably the most valid point I have read in this whole thread, thank you.
[QUOTE=HetsuProcyon;45322052]This is probably the most valid point I have read in this whole thread, thank you.[/QUOTE] People are expecting Windows' UI to be tailored to their exact tastes and preferences straight out of the box. That's what's truly flawed here. It's entitlement, and it's straight up not possible.
I was at Staples yesterday and when I used search to find the button that would take me to the desktop, it instead gave me a blank screen unless I clicked the windows metro button on the keyboard. Pinning it the metro screen didn't make it visible either. v:v:v
[QUOTE=Satane;45325446]Nope, there are menus only accessible through the fullscreen crap. Like changing user account settings, and the settings for the start menu itself.[/QUOTE] Winkey+S, search for what you need.
I hope Microsoft plays this right... I am deeply saddened that this could potentially cause a major regression in the evolution of Windows
[QUOTE=Satane;45325446]Nope, there are menus only accessible through the fullscreen crap. Like changing user account settings, and the settings for the start menu itself.[/QUOTE] Right, so you are pissed off because when you go to Control Panel - User Accounts and click the link "make changes to my account in PC settings" you have to use the Start Screen to change your profile image, password and create a PIN? You change name, type and account control settings through the control panel. I honestly don't see the big deal in having to use it for 5 seconds to set a picture and then never again (I don't know why you would change password, and if so why that would happen so often you couldn't stand it). And how is it terrible to use the Start Screen to edit how the Start Screen works? The only reason you would want to edit it is if you want to use it.
I hope it doesn't come with that Windows 8 design. I don't like it. But I hope that they will make further improvements with ergonomics and add some nice options for the taskbar and stuff. Like easy to create menus for shortcuts or whatever. Also, better performance would be nice.
Make it a free upgrade and I'll consider it.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45323985]People are expecting Windows' UI to be tailored to their exact tastes and preferences straight out of the box. That's what's truly flawed here. It's entitlement, and it's straight up not possible.[/QUOTE] I should be able to configure it to my tastes without having to jump over hurdles of doom, though. I don't like Windows 8 because it tries to create a one-size-fits-all OS that just doesn't work. In order to fix this, I have to uninstall all the Metro apps and reconfigure the default applications to use their normal desktop versions. Why isn't there a way to do this within the control panel with a simple option? Change is good, but change that makes things consistently harder for someone's workflow is just stupid.
[QUOTE=Satane;45325446]Nope, there are menus only accessible through the fullscreen crap. Like changing user account settings, and the settings for the start menu itself.[/QUOTE] lmao no you don't [t]http://i.imgur.com/DGNFKQb.png[/t] Literally 1 right-click and 3 left-clicks as opposed to the start-menus 4 left-clicks. Good job shit-talking something when you don't even know how it works.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;45329536]lmao no you don't [t]http://i.imgur.com/DGNFKQb.png[/t] Literally 1 right-click and 3 left-clicks as opposed to the start-menus 4 left-clicks. Good job shit-talking something when you don't even know how it works.[/QUOTE] What are you even going on about? Yeah they still have the old "user accounts" menu in the old control panel, but some of the most basic changes like changing your user picture or password can't be done there. It just redirects you to the metro settings app. Not that it's a big deal, but he's still right.
[QUOTE=RautaPalli;45329649]What are you even going on about? Yeah they still have the old "user accounts" menu in the old control panel, but some of the most basic changes like changing your user picture or password can't be done there. It just redirects you to the metro settings app. Not that it's a big deal, but he's still right.[/QUOTE] It doesn't mean you [i]can't[/i] do it though.
[QUOTE=HetsuProcyon;45329659]It doesn't mean you [i]can't[/i] do it though.[/QUOTE] He never said you couldn't, he said you had to use the fullscreen menu to do it, and he's right. Why it's a big deal is an entirely different thing. Why would anyone change account pictures or password often enough to even care about that one visit?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45323985]People are expecting Windows' UI to be tailored to their exact tastes and preferences straight out of the box. That's what's truly flawed here. It's entitlement, and it's straight up not possible.[/QUOTE] You're right, that's not possible. You know what is possible though? Letting me use the same fucking start menu I've been using for 15 years. A lot of people who aren't tech savvy enough to get the Classic Shell are stuck with Metro, even if they hate it. Windows 8.1 is a huge step up from the original release, but it still shouldn't be forced on people because Microsoft ways less than half of people used it.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45333659]You're right, that's not possible. You know what is possible though? Letting me use the same fucking start menu I've been using for 15 years. A lot of people who aren't tech savvy enough to get the Classic Shell are stuck with Metro, even if they hate it. Windows 8.1 is a huge step up from the original release, but it still shouldn't be forced on people because Microsoft ways less than half of people used it.[/QUOTE] "God I was so fucking used to using DOS for all these years, why is Microsoft shitting it up and forcing this 'windows' crap on us??"
[QUOTE=dgg;45330715]He never said you couldn't, he said you had to use the fullscreen menu to do it, and he's right. Why it's a big deal is an entirely different thing. Why would anyone change account pictures or password often enough to even care about that one visit?[/QUOTE] You're forced into it and while it happened, Windows 8 raped and killed my dog
They really need to bring back dreamscene. It is the only thing I liked about Vista, and it's missing in 7. Not sure if it's in 8.
Here's my beef with Windows 8: You've got Metro and the default desktop. They don't work together in harmony. They are two separate approaches to how a desktop should function. Sure, I can open up the Metro calculator if I like doing full-screen computing, but I don't. I can resize it to fit 1/3 of my screen, but that's a terrible waste of space. It would be fine if I was on a tablet, but I'm not. I do web design and play games. I consistently have tons of windows open. A lot of people who are in defense of Metro and Windows 8 like to claim that the naysayers are just resistant to change, and I'm on board with that: I'm resistant to change that doesn't really make anything easier or just changes things for the sake of change. Why is it that an operating system like Windows suddenly drops windows functionality for the sake of a design that relies on full or split screen applications? What was wrong with Windows? I thought those were quite nice, considering I'm constantly multitasking between Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects, video games, Chrome, Skype, Steam, and a plethora of strictly desktop applications. Hell, the Metro apps wouldn't be so bad if I could just simply run them in a sizable and detached Window like any other application. That would be awesome, but is not the case. As a result, I have to set the default applications for everything to something non-Metro which is tedious and boring. Why can't there be an easy setting to just disable most of what's Metro? I'm not complaining about the start menu - that's completely fine with me. When I go to preview a picture or listen to music, however, I don't want it to run in Metro, and there should be a way to easily get rid of all that in one fell swoop. The one-size-fits-all Metro doesn't work for me and pretty much everyone I know. That's by far the most frustrating thing - they introduced a new design interface but provided no method of adapting to the new method easily when using both desktop and Metro applications, and provided no way to situate yourself in just the desktop or Metro environment. It's like juggling between two massively divided operating systems, and if I wanted to do that I would resort to virtual machines. You can say I'm insane but I've found Windows 8's design to be quite a hurdle to my workflow on a fresh installation. It's only when I get rid of most things that makes Windows 8 that I get a pleasant operating system. [editline]8th July 2014[/editline] [quote]Literally 1 right-click and 3 left-clicks as opposed to the start-menus 4 left-clicks. Good job shit-talking something when you don't even know how it works.[/QUOTE] To be fair, Windows 8 hid a lot of things like the power menu for the longest time that required me to do some Googling to find.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;45335200]Here's my beef with Windows 8: You've got Metro and the default desktop. They don't work together in harmony. They are two separate approaches to how a desktop should function. Sure, I can open up the Metro calculator if I like doing full-screen computing, but I don't. I can resize it to fit 1/3 of my screen, but that's a terrible waste of space. It would be fine if I was on a tablet, but I'm not. I do web design and play games. I consistently have tons of windows open. A lot of people who are in defense of Metro and Windows 8 like to claim that the naysayers are just resistant to change, and I'm on board with that: I'm resistant to change that doesn't really make anything easier or just changes things for the sake of change. Why is it that an operating system like Windows suddenly drops windows functionality for the sake of a design that relies on full or split screen applications? What was wrong with Windows? I thought those were quite nice, considering I'm constantly multitasking between Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects, video games, Chrome, Skype, Steam, and a plethora of strictly desktop applications. Hell, the Metro apps wouldn't be so bad if I could just simply run them in a sizable and detached Window like any other application. That would be awesome, but is not the case. As a result, I have to set the default applications for everything to something non-Metro which is tedious and boring. Why can't there be an easy setting to just disable most of what's Metro? I'm not complaining about the start menu - that's completely fine with me. When I go to preview a picture or listen to music, however, I don't want it to run in Metro, and there should be a way to easily get rid of all that in one fell swoop. The one-size-fits-all Metro doesn't work for me and pretty much everyone I know. That's by far the most frustrating thing - they introduced a new design interface but provided no method of adapting to the new method easily when using both desktop and Metro applications, and provided no way to situate yourself in just the desktop or Metro environment. It's like juggling between two massively divided operating systems, and if I wanted to do that I would resort to virtual machines. You can say I'm insane but I've found Windows 8's design to be quite a hurdle to my workflow on a fresh installation. It's only when I get rid of most things that makes Windows 8 that I get a pleasant operating system. [editline]8th July 2014[/editline] To be fair, Windows 8 hid a lot of things like the power menu for the longest time that required me to do some Googling to find.[/QUOTE] At least with 8.1 metro is about as optional to use as IE.
[QUOTE=redsoxrock;45335323]At least with 8.1 metro is about as optional to use as IE.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except they've pretty much ruined their impression of anything having to do with Windows 8 for most people I know. It's avoided as much as possible unless it comes preinstalled on a computer.
Another thing I love about Windows 8 is its support for dual monitors. Windows 7 and beyond was fucking awful at that. Second screen didn't have a taskbar, you needed external programs to set different wallpapers - all that comes natively in Win8.
[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;45335398]Basically, it's irritating when something as simple as a search-box/icons panel takes a full screen on a PC. We already have desktop and we already had search-panel in w7 start menu, Metro is an overkill. It would be fine if it was optional tho. Metro is literally another OS slapped on top of windows. So instead of improved windows you get another shell/OS on top of W7. That's why people didn't like it basically. Right now I'm okay with metro, but still, I'd rather not have it and I'd rather see some enhancements for actual desktop windows itself.[/QUOTE] Since there are programs that gives you back the Start Menu it is optional.
[QUOTE=dgg;45338427]Since there are programs that gives you back the Start Menu it is optional.[/QUOTE] The end user should not have to rely on third party tools to restore basic functionality. This is the exact same reason people have repeatedly gotten mad at the firefox UI devs.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45338512]The end user should not have to rely on third party tools to restore basic functionality. This is the exact same reason people have repeatedly gotten mad at the firefox UI devs.[/QUOTE] And yet the ability to flash a custom ROM on Android is touted as a great thing and a good reason to get it.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45338512]The end user should not have to rely on third party tools to restore basic functionality. This is the exact same reason people have repeatedly gotten mad at the firefox UI devs.[/QUOTE] First of all, the basic functionality is there. Bringing back the Start Menu only alters how it looks, it doesn't give you new functionality. Nothing was removed. it is a UI change, not a functionality change. Using Classic Shell to get the Start Menu back is no different than installing Firefox to replace Internet Explorer, you just replace one internet browser with another, they still serve the same purpose, they just do it a bit differently. Second of all installing programs to tailor suit Windows is one of the selling points anyone would give Windows to begin with. You replace IE with Firefox/Chrome, you replace Windows Explorer with Winzip/Winrar/7zip, some replace Windows Photo Viewer with Irfanviewer, Paint with Photoshop, Windows Movie Maker with Sony Vegas/Premiere Pro. Etc etc etc. Installing programs to get the experience you want out of the system is the core experience of using Windows, or any PC at all. You're just arbitrarily making a deal about the Start Menu, treating it differently than anything else. You don't apply the same rules and logic to the Start Menu as you do any other program ever because you have never used a Windows system without the Start Menu before. It's a change and you can revert it, there exists no problem, your arguments are weak and based on frustration from change, not from logic and reason.
I think the reason I don't mind the full-screen start menu is that my monitor is only 1280x1024. I imagine it would be a lot more annoying at a higher resolution.
I don't know what could win me over to windows 9, since I been still using and I am still satisfied with windows 7. I love the ability to right click a shortcut and take me to the main installation folder, which is a very useful feature for me when installing mods and addons on certain games and programs. I like the feel of the whole UI system and when the last time I've tried windows 8, everything pretty much change and sadly it feels more restricted and clogged then what windows vista had... It might take me more time to get used to the new massive changes of whatever they could be implemented, as I could imagine that there be windows 8 feature that will be integrated into windows 9 but not all features...
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/LL0aQa.jpg[/img] Shamelessly stolen from Panda X's thread on [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1409122]Hardware and Software[/url].
That start menu should've been in 8 release as an optional choice between fullscreen one.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45387984]That start menu should've been in 8 release as an optional choice between fullscreen one.[/QUOTE] That's what it's going to be in 9. You get a choice over the start screen or that start menu. Personally, I'd prefer the screen. That thing looks ugly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.