Live data from Hacker News

Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

ignorethecode.net

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#71
> You can design user interfaces that work for both, and mouse-driven systems profit from many of the UI changes that make for good touchscreen user interfaces — a clean, simple interaction design and large click targets, for example.

I don't think this is true. With a mouse, you can easily make very precise small movements, so a tiny button positioned right next to where you already have the mouse cursor (perhaps, for example, over another tiny button) is very easy to reach. A tiny button farther away is much harder to hit because you make larger and less precise movements to get there from where you were. The size of the target is not as important as its proximity to the cursor's current position.

On a touch screen, with no relative movement, the situation is pretty much the opposite: If you have tiny touch targets right next to each other, it's very hard to hit the right one, and you can't see if the cursor is positioned correctly before you click. If they're farther apart, it's easier to hit the right one, or at least harder to hit the wrong one. (And obviously larger targets are better.)

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. No, it wasn't. It isn't. (I liked the improvements in 8.1 but that blanket statement from you is false)

Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false. See, we can both do that. Fun. However in my case I'm supported by this very development , where Microsoft is essentially backtracking based upon enormous customer resistance and a backlash.

>Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false.

> See, we can both do that. Fun.

Which immediately disproves your original assertion that the Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. That was just, like, your opinion, man.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#73
Windows 8 was a failure in the enterprise desktop market. Loss aversion meant that corporations did not want to train their staff to use an unfamiliar UI, and the great majority of corporations either postponed upgrades or stayed with Windows 7.

http://bgr.com/2014/02/04/windows-8-adoption-analysis/ http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/300073591/windows-8-...

With Ballmer gone, Windows 10 can return to the familiar Windows 7 look and feel for enterprise desktop purchasers - so hopes Microsoft.

When the iPad and iPhone first dominated their respective markets, Ubuntu was first to respond because Linux evolves faster than Microsoft. The Unity Desktop was the canary in the coal mine with respect to how desktop users would react at the software vendor's natural desire for UI convergence.

Notably, Steve Jobs and Apple, maintained two UIs, one: MAC OS for the desktop and laptops, and two: iOS for touch/mobile. Apple routinely mocked Microsoft, and ignored Ubuntu as non-competitive.

Desktop and Laptop, e.g. keyboard and mouse, multi-monitor, are better for content creation, such as writing software.

Mobile - touch and voice and camera - are better for content consumption, messaging and always-with-you intelligent services, e.g. navigation.

Tim Cook at Apple famously said Windows 8 was converging a ‘Toaster and a Refrigerator’.

I really don't care about Windows as I am a Docker application developer, and routinely use Ubuntu Unity which I grown accustomed to. Good luck Microsoft on Windows 10.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#74
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. Not a chance. IMO, not only was the the best Windows from a technical perspective, I quite liked the interface. I use Linux mostly for philosophical and technical reasons (much easier to program in Linux), but Windows 8 has great UI.

No, it was terrible, unless you installed a classic shell.

I wouldn't go that far. I manage perfectly fine without it.

I like the fact that the Start Screen makes full use of my 27" 2560 x 1440 LCD. With the Windows 7-style Start Menu all of your shortcuts are shoved into a tiny corner of the screen.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#75
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it wasn't. It isn't. Disclaimer: Emphasis on SUBJECTIVE before you indicate my opinion is wrong because you have a different opinion. That's pretty-much what subjective means. I thought HN was smarter than this. Agreed, it's subjective. This is change aversion, not loss aversion. Humans don't like change, even if it is good for them. People don't like Windows 8 UI because it was a change, and they don't like th…

> People don't like Windows 8 UI because it was a change, and they don't like that they are changing it back. No, people don't like the Windows 8 UI because it's terrible on the desktop. Comparatively, the classic Windows UI is terrible on touch-screen devices. Even combining both interfaces on one OS isn't terrible. But in Windows 8 they both bleed into each other in a way that is not good. Windows 10 combines them…

I use Windows 8 and it is not objectively terrible, it is actually quite OK and doesn't result in any loss of productivity for myself.

There is the whole whole screen start menu thing, but I wasn't a big start menu user in Windows 7, and I barely notice. I don't find Metro to be very useful for me, and I don't go there often, but it doesn't really bleed into the desktop so whatever.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was terrible, unless you installed a classic shell.

I wouldn't go that far. I manage perfectly fine without it. I like the fact that the Start Screen makes full use of my 27" 2560 x 1440 LCD. With the Windows 7-style Start Menu all of your shortcuts are shoved into a tiny corner of the screen.

Or you can look at it another way: I can comfortably fit more on my 1600x900 monitor with Classic Shell's start menu than you would on you 2560x1440 LCD with the Windows 8 start screen.

In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't go that far. I manage perfectly fine without it. I like the fact that the Start Screen makes full use of my 27" 2560 x 1440 LCD. With the Windows 7-style Start Menu all of your shortcuts are shoved into a tiny corner of the screen.

Or you can look at it another way: I can comfortably fit more on my 1600x900 monitor with Classic Shell's start menu than you would on you 2560x1440 LCD with the Windows 8 start screen. In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.

> In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.

The Windows 7-style Start Menu is modal too in the sense that you can't interact with the desktop at the same time you are interacting with the Start Menu.

The other thing I don't particularly like about the Start Menu is that shortcuts and folders with long names get cut off due to the width of the menu itself.

Screens are a bit like RAM in my opinion. There to be used.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but he's critiquing it from the perspective of a tablet OS. The majority of the intertial pushback Windows 8 suffered was from desktop users who absolutely did not want a mobile-esque interface on their desktop computer . His usability points are good--from a tablet user's perspective--but it completely misses the point of Windows 10, which is to regain trust from desktop and enterprise users. He furth…

Fair points, though I would say two things: 1. Touchscreen computers are in the minority now, but I don't think they'll remain in the minority. Kids are growing up on iPhones, Android phones, and iPads. A computer without a touchscreen will seem increasingly anachronistic to them, so designing against that trend is a backwards-looking strategy. 2. I don't see how the changes Microsoft has made in Windows 10 so far we…

> 1. Touchscreen computers are in the minority now, but I don't think they'll remain in the minority.

I'm not completely sure I agree. But as with most things in technology, reflecting on past design changes or evolution isn't always a good marker for what's in store for the future. For one thing, I can foresee typical desk positions as a contributing factor to shoulder strain when using a touch-style monitor for prolonged periods being a problem. Would it be useful for some things? Sure, but I don't see it as completely practical when the user essentially has to reach up and press the monitor all day for various tasks (industrial use cases might be worth researching here since so many of them rely on touch interfaces or similar, particularly in high tech factories, but most of these workers are not only standing but the buttons are quite large).

Remember, the same kids you mentioned who are growing up with touch devices have also been exposed, generally, to pointing devices in parallel for much of their lives. The mouse, as a pointing device, is going to take a ground breaking technological leap to kill--touch alone isn't going to accomplish this because the precision simply isn't there.

Realistically, I don't see it as backwards: I see it as practical.

> 2. Removing charms, for example, did nothing for desktop PCs.

(Disclaimer: I never used Windows 8 precisely because of these decisions. Likewise, I'm a Linux user. That probably tells you everything you need to know.)

Charms annoyed the hell out of me; rather, the fullscreen application of them annoyed the hell out of me. For one, defaulting to a fullscreen UI on a desktop absolutely breaks workflow for most people (myself included), it's visually jarring, and making something scroll horizontally in a desktop environment is not only inconsistent with the default behavior of most applications (also designed for a desktop environment) but it's almost painfully awkward to use with a mouse. I commend Microsoft for trying something new, but their current decisions to make Windows 10 more like a 7-8 hybrid are suggestive of a deeper truth: There's no business sense in alienating a substantial majority of your install base by imposing a UI that's both painful and intrusive to use for most desktop users.

To say nothing of the various hotspots enabled by default that were clearly intended to be used with swipe gestures. You could argue it's annoyance bred by lack of interest in learning a new UI (it's not), but when that same UI is intended for something that primarily uses touch interaction, shoehorning it into an environment where the primary interaction is through a pointing device, you're left with a disaster. Hence Windows 10, which I don't find all that bad.

Also, I should note that while tablet mode in Windows 10 still retains some of the smaller, more difficult-to-activate-via-touch items in the start screen, we're still discussing a preview version of an OS that isn't expected to be released until October. I expect that they'll further improve tablet mode for touch users.

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can look at it another way: I can comfortably fit more on my 1600x900 monitor with Classic Shell's start menu than you would on you 2560x1440 LCD with the Windows 8 start screen. In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.

> In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate. The Windows 7-style Start Menu is modal too in the sense that you can't interact with the desktop at the same time you are interacting with the Start Menu. The other thing I don't particularly like about the Start Menu is that shortcuts and folders with long names get cut off due to the width of the menu itself. Screens are a bit like RAM in my opini…

> The Windows 7-style Start Menu is modal too in the sense that you can't interact with the desktop at the same time you are interacting with the Start Menu.

Huh? If you define it that way then everything is modal because you can only ever interact with one window at a given time (one mouse, one keyboard, etc.)

Re: Windows 10: Re-Crappifying Windows 8

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't like Windows 8 UI because it was a change, and they don't like that they are changing it back. No, people don't like the Windows 8 UI because it's terrible on the desktop. Comparatively, the classic Windows UI is terrible on touch-screen devices. Even combining both interfaces on one OS isn't terrible. But in Windows 8 they both bleed into each other in a way that is not good. Windows 10 combines them…

> No, people don't like the Windows 8 UI because it's terrible on the desktop. I use Windows 8.1 on the desktop every day - since Windows 8 was released - and I honestly can't understand why people have such huge problems with it unless it is just about change. I had my first impressions of it in a VM when it was RTM. At that time I did think it was pretty ugly and I got really frustrated (i.e., I was cussing up a st…

> There is a fantastic context menu on the Start button with quick access to various administrative functions.

Never heard about this one before, thanks for the tip!

Post reply on HN