Let's Talk Windows 8

[njiska]

Since the community preview is out I'm curious to find out what people think. Here's my thoughts:

Negative
- New UI elements are not intuitive and are difficult for old and new users alike
- Getting to important items like the Control Panel and the Shutdown button is needlessly convoluted
- The lack of a generic "Apps" button on the Start Screen is confusing. Took me a while to figure out I could find the list in "Search"
- Gestures, while nice, are largely useless because unlike the Mac world where touch input devices (especially multi-touch) are common and plentiful, the PC world almost always lacks them.
- Even the login screen is confusing as there's no indication you need to slide the image upwards to reveal the password box
- Accessing safe mode easily seems to require adding a boot option with BCDedit
- Hot corner for the Start Screen is confusing. If you move to click the button that pops up it disappears and you open IE.

Positive
- New Task manager is beautiful and provides way more information than before and in better ways.
- hot corners are not a bad idea but implemented poorly.

Overall there's potential, but right now it just seems everything is so poorly explained.

Any one who want's to try Win 8

Windows 8 Consumer Preview ISOs - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/iso
VirtualBox (If you don't have your own VM solution this one is Win7, OS X, Linux and Solaris compatible) - https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

[Friendly]

Let's Talk Windows 8

I'd rather not. It looks like a mess. (Also lulz; wasn't Windows 7 released ~last week?) Hopefully this will make more people check out Linux.

For those who haven't already: Give Ubuntu a try, you won't regret it.

[TransatlanticFoe]

Microsoft need to get cracking with the tablet and smartphone market, hence this release. It looks like it'll help and I was all ready to go with a Windows phone until a blinding Android deal fell into my hands.

However it seems somewhat pointless for those running standard desktops, especially as Win 7 64 bit has just about got itself on a steady footing now and the OS has restored some faith in Microsoft after Vista.

Can't help but feel that this would be better off as an offshoot for the tablet market rather than branded as Windows 8. It's not going to do MS any favours dropping it so soon after 7 having had XP as the norm for so long. And as someone who works in the software industry, having to support an extra OS is going to be a strain - with XP not being unsupported for a couple of years yet.

[Icarus]

Did you know that there may be nine different versions of Win 8? Little excessive, no?

[njiska]

Let's Talk Windows 8

I'd rather not. It looks like a mess.

That's exactly why I want to have a talk and find out what people who have used the OS actually think. Only a fool dismisses something outright without first trying it. I agree that it looks like a mess, but I'm also willing to give it a try and find out. That's the point of the Consumer Preview. There's potential here if the hardware ecology can adapt fast enough.

Hopefully this will make more people check out Linux.

For those who haven't already: Give Ubuntu a try, you won't regret it.

I love how Linux users try to keep believing the pipe dream, but the fact is that a bad MS OS does not drive people to your holy grail. It either makes them angry and they stick with the previous OS (like XP during the Vista Days) or they turn to OS X. The fact is that Linux, in general, is not prepared to be a desktop operating system for the masses and part of the problem is the ignorance of the people developing it. That said, Ubtuntu is a special case and is ready to be a mainstream Desktop OS, however no average person is going to seek it out and it's not something someone like my Dad could walk into a computer store and get support with.

To your later point, I have given Ubuntu a try and I don't have a particular interest in moving to it in the future.

Can't help but feel that this would be better off as an offshoot for the tablet market rather than branded as Windows 8. It's not going to do MS any favours dropping it so soon after 7 having had XP as the norm for so long. And as someone who works in the software industry, having to support an extra OS is going to be a strain - with XP not being unsupported for a couple of years yet.

I understand where you're coming from and you're right, it doesn't make a lot of business sense. I can kind of see it as Microsoft trying to adopt an update model closer to what Apple has been doing with OS X where you have numbered increments and smaller updates, but it still seems too fast. Both companies are trying to introduce touch and tablet functionality into their respective OS, but while Apple is taking the route of adding features to an already existing and functional OS, MS is basically shifting the entire focus of Windows to tablet and reducing the previous functions that everyone knows to being background components like the Command Line became in Win 9X/NT. That's the biggest hurdle for people to get past with Win 8.

Did you know that there may be nine different versions of Win 8? Little excessive, no?

Absolutely, but the same was true of Win 7 and Vista. I think at most there should be two, Home and Corporate.

[Ex-Cyber]

I haven't tried the new release, but in the Developer Preview I found the start screen animation to be really annoying (in that it takes a bit too long to actually come up), and I didn't like how they separated applications from system configuration stuff in the search.

I really don't get what MS is trying to do with WinRT, especially in how it relates to .NET and Windows API. It's as though they feel that since they're not competing on implementing a standard, they're duty-bound to fragment their own platform internally.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Not intrested tbh, I hate how MS is always changing their UIs in windows and xbox. Ive got win 7 and dont plan on upgrading until win 9. Besides going by their past history, every other version of windows has been a bit naff.

[CMPXCHG8B]

I'd rather not. It looks like a mess. (Also lulz; wasn't Windows 7 released ~last week?) Hopefully this will make more people check out Linux.

For those who haven't already: Give Ubuntu a try, you won't regret it.

Please.

Linux is more fucked up then Microsoft and Apple combined. It got that way when Torvalds decided he was a kernel developer and that user land was someone else's problem, so now we've got the situation of N distributions that work slightly differently and are rarely cross-compatible- certainly not on a binary level, anyways. And because all the distribution folks are busy trying to be like Microsoft and Apple at the same time, we've been bestowed with wonderful examples of how not to do user interfaces- most notably, Unity (Ubuntu) and Gnome 3.0.

Now that I think of it, everyone and everything is completely whacked today. This newfound obsession with making computing accessible to idiots who can't even comprehend a folder will be the beginning of the end. If you can't figure out a mouse, or a drop down menu, or comprehend basic security and internet safety then you have no right touching a computer. That's right- using a computer isn't your natural born "right". It's a privilege, backed up by basic (un)common sense and a working brain. If you don't have either then you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near something that has more computational power then a desktop calculator.

All these companies and groups- Apple, Microsoft, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc- they can go screw themselves with their automatic configuration daemons and fisher price user interfaces. Don't need it, don't want it. Now get off my fucking lawn, I need to go re-install OS/2 Warp on my laptop because I hosed config.sys with a typo.

-CMPX

[njiska]

Not intrested tbh, I hate how MS is always changing their UIs in windows and xbox. Ive got win 7 and dont plan on upgrading until win 9. Besides going by their past history, every other version of windows has been a bit naff.

So reverse Star Trek Syndrome? Only the odd one's are good?

Now that I think of it, everyone and everything is completely whacked today. This newfound obsession with making computing accessible to idiots who can't even comprehend a folder will be the beginning of the end. If you can't figure out a mouse, or a drop down menu, or comprehend basic security and internet safety then you have no right touching a computer. That's right- using a computer isn't your natural born "right". It's a privilege, backed up by basic (un)common sense and a working brain. If you don't have either then you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near something that has more computational power then a desktop calculator.

All these companies and groups- Apple, Microsoft, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc- they can go screw themselves with their automatic configuration daemons and fisher price user interfaces. Don't need it, don't want it. Now get off my fucking lawn, I need to go re-install OS/2 Warp on my laptop because I hosed config.sys with a typo.

-CMPX

See this is exactly the problem I have with the open source community. Making something easier to use does not make it bad and the fact is a lot of the standards we've grown up with an think are great really need to die. Package systems are a great example of this. I like being able to apt-get the software I need rather than having to manually MAKE the software and all of it's dependencies. I also don't want the hell of trying to rip it all out after the fact. This opinion is also ignorant of the needs of a business. You want more people using your OS and the correct way to do that is to offer better, less convoluted UIs. There is nothing wrong with a fisher price interface and automatic configuration so long as they work, are intuitive and the advanced options are still available for the people who need them. Ubuntu is probably the closest OS to this ideal.

I'm a fairly advanced computer user, but I will stick my dick in a bacon slicer before choosing to live in a Gentoo world.

[CMoon]

I want Windows XP-reborn edition.

[null1024]

Linux is more fucked up then Microsoft and Apple combined. It got that way when Torvalds decided he was a kernel developer and that user land was someone else's problem, so now we've got the situation of N distributions that work slightly differently and are rarely cross-compatible- certainly not on a binary level, anyways. And because all the distribution folks are busy trying to be like Microsoft and Apple at the same time, we've been bestowed with wonderful examples of how not to do user interfaces- most notably, Unity (Ubuntu) and Gnome 3.0.

Well, usually binaries between distros just work -- I can just pack a raw binary in a .tar.gz and give it out and just say "for Linux on x86" and my users will probably be happy, as long as they aren't on some pathetically minimal system. If I really really really want it to work absolutely everywhere, almost no exceptions, I can do the OSXlike route and statically link damn near everything in [and make massive 40MB binaries ]. It's just packages that are a bitch, especially when you're on a .deb distro and the program you want is in a .rpm, and you can't seem to compile the dependencies yourself to build it from source.

But the bit about really assy UIs is true -- I'm still on Ubuntu 10.04LTS just because of Unity [even though you can go back to the old Gnome 2 UI IIRC [and 10.10 isn't getting updates, so don't mention it]]. You know something is wrong when you make a UI that almost doesn't do anything that the ones you copied do right [especially pointing to Unity vs Aqua, it really feels like a terribly crippled OSX].

Also, how much in Windows 8 has changed since the Developer Preview? I'm too lazy to download and set this up this instant.

[njiska]

Also, how much in Windows 8 has changed since the Developer Preview? I'm too lazy to download and set this up this instant.

To my knowledge most of the changes have been under the hood. They have increased the number of apps available, but I don't think there's been any UI changes/updates.

[CMPXCHG8B]

See this is exactly the problem I have with the open source community. Making something easier to use does not make it bad and the fact is a lot of the standards we've grown up with an think are great really need to die.

I completely agree with you here.

The issue is that we've gone from "Let's make it better and easier to use" to "Let's turn it into a giant easy button with no options". Developers got into this egotistical mind set that they know what I'm doing better then I do- and are therefore qualified to make decisions on my behalf without giving me a way to change things.

Package systems are a great example of this. I like being able to apt-get the software I need rather than having to manually MAKE the software and all of it's dependencies. I also don't want the hell of trying to rip it all out after the fact. This opinion is also ignorant of the needs of a business. You want more people using your OS and the correct way to do that is to offer better, less convoluted UIs.

Yes, but not at the expense of straightforward usability. Every UI is convoluted to a certain extent if someone has never seen it before. You can make things un-convoluted by unifying the operation of everything so different applications still work the same. As the user learns to operate their computer in general, the mind set that they develop is applicable to everything and not just a certain application.

This is why Apple had their Human Interface Guidelines, which everyone tended to follow, up until recently (when Apple themselves decided they suddenly didn't need it).

There is nothing wrong with a fisher price interface and automatic configuration so long as they work, are intuitive and the advanced options are still available for the people who need them. Ubuntu is probably the closest OS to this ideal.

That's the problem. Apple in particular is dead set against options of any kind. There is no excuse in 2012 to NOT have a unified configuration interface for applications to use (Registry for Windows, Preference Lists for Apple), and a standardized method of exposing advanced options to the user if they so require them- but in an unobtrusive way so that regular users don't even know they're there.

I'm a fairly advanced computer user, but I will stick my dick in a bacon slicer before choosing to live in a Gentoo world.

Except that pure distributions like Gentoo and Debian seem to be the only way to have a choice these days. All the rest of the distributions are off making choices for you, assuming that you'll just blindly accept their way and go along with the flow because it's obviously what is best for you. I'm not defending the Gentoo way of doing things- I ran it for 6 years before I got fed up with recompiling my entire OS because I forgot a use flag somewhere (reminds me of http://funroll-loops.info).

However Linux seems to be divided up into two groups now- all or nothing. Either everything is automagically configured for you, or nothing is. Why can't we have a nice stable middle ground? We had precisely that up to about 3 years ago when things started to go sideways.

I can do the OSXlike route and statically link damn near everything in

Huh?

OS X doesn't statically link to anything, unless it's a third party library and you tell it to. All the system and Cocoa libraries are dynamic. If you're referring to the *.app bundles, then those aren't actually binaries- they're folders containing support files (images, help documents, frameworks) PLUS the application binary, which is always located in ./MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS. There can also be helper binaries in there too.

Usually most binaries on OS X are universal as well (containing both 32-bit and 64-bit code). But it's rare the binary itself ever exceeds 40MB. Even Logic Pro only weighs in at 30MB, and that's a fat binary (32-bit/64-bit), so you can divide that by two. The actual Logic 9 application bundle is over 700MB though, because of all the images and frameworks and stuff required to run it.

-CMPX

[null1024]

I can do the OSXlike route and statically link damn near everything in

Huh?

OS X doesn't statically compile anything. All the system and Cocoa libraries are dynamic. If you're referring to the *.app bundles, then those aren't actually binaries- they're folders containing support files (images, help documents, frameworks) PLUS the application binary, which is always located in ./MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS. There can also be helper files in there too.

Usually most binaries on OS X are universal as well (containing both 32-bit and 64-bit code). But it's rare the binary itself ever exceeds 40MB. Even Logic Pro only weighs in at 30MB, and that's a fat binary (32-bit/64-bit), so you can divide that by two. The actual Logic 9 application bundle is over 700MB though, because of all the images and frameworks and stuff required to run it.

-CMPX

Ja, that's what I mean. Including all your dependencies/frameworks in a single, directly executable file. In Linux, that'd be achieved by statically compiling them in.
I could have swore the actual executable section in .app bundles had statically linked libraries, but I guess I'm wrong on that. They still do tend to avoid putting them in a system-wide location [like most apps on Windows and most if not all Linux distros], most of them include their own copy of {insert library here}, unless it's expected for a given version of OSX to provide it.


Back to Windows 8, if there's no UI changes from the developer preview, I'm disappointed.
Fuck ribbonizing Explorer, I put up with it in Office, I don't actually like it, and I don't want it infecting the rest of my interface! They have a rationale for changing here, but it's just how clunky the ribbon is that really kills it. Overlarge buttons, nearly completely unused commands brought front-and-center, and oddly placed buttons.
And hopefully, desktop versions won't default to the tablet like system UI on final release.

[Ex-Cyber]

Fuck ribbonizing Explorer, I put up with it in Office, I don't actually like it, and I don't want it infecting the rest of my interface! They have a rationale for changing here, but it's just how clunky the ribbon is that really kills it. Overlarge buttons, nearly completely unused commands brought front-and-center, and oddly placed buttons.

This, in large part. What really kills it for me is that they try to just cram a huge number of functions into it, which means that they have to make the icons for the subordinate functions simultaneously tiny (so as to avoid taking up a third of the screen with icon clutter) and distinctive (so I can figure out what the fuck I'm actually clicking). That's not a winning combination, even for the best designers/artists. Besides, I like to think that I learned to read for a reason.

[Friendly]

Food for thought: I have introduced a few people to Ubuntu. Non-gamers who do nothing but surf the internet with Firefox, use Open Office, email, Skype and watch videos and listen to music. They love it. It's faster and slicker than Windows, they don't need to worry about viruses and firewalls anymore and it's free.

Many people just *think* they need Windows (well done, Microsoft), until someone comes along and shows them that they really don't. Just like they don't need Microsoft Office.

[Ed Oscuro]

I want Windows XP-reborn edition.

Don't you mean 2K?

Anyway, what's this "Apps" business njiska is talking about?

We have a name for Apps on Windows, "programs."

I'm anticipating that you'll still be able to select the Classic (Win9X-esque) setup in 8, just like every previous version.

That being said, I have no use for 8 right now, I don't think. Unless it's proven to reduce input lag in MAME and boost FPS elsewhere, I really don't care. There were supposed to be some new back-end improvements in 8 pushed back from the release of 7 but they are esoteric enough that I don't think I would possibly be handicapped without them.

[Gus]

Food for thought: I have introduced a few people to Ubuntu. Non-gamers who do nothing but surf the internet with Firefox, use Open Office, email, Skype and watch videos and listen to music. They love it. It's faster and slicker than Windows, they don't need to worry about viruses and firewalls anymore and it's free.

Many people just *think* they need Windows (well done, Microsoft), until someone comes along and shows them that they really don't. Just like they don't need Microsoft Office.

Yeah, I used to be a big Windows XP fan until a few years ago when I got a virus and because MS's customer support is fucking horrible I was basically left with no choice but to recover my files with an Ubuntu live CD and install it. Never looked back. It's amazing how much faster, safer, and easier it is. It also comes with all kinds of free software to make it easy to do anything you were doing on Windows and makes it easy to install anything else you might need. It can be annoying if you want to play Touhou or some other Windows game but it still lets you just make a small Windows partition and boot into that whenever you get the itch.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, I used to be a big Windows XP fan until a few years ago when I got a virus and because MS's customer support is fucking horrible I was basically left with no choice but to recover my files with an Ubuntu live CD and install it. Never looked back. It's amazing how much faster, safer, and easier it is. It also comes with all kinds of free software to make it easy to do anything you were doing on Windows and makes it easy to install anything else you might need. It can be annoying if you want to play Touhou or some other Windows game but it still lets you just make a small Windows partition and boot into that whenever you get the itch.

I love the assumption that nearly decade-old software should be as stable and quick as new releases, and also that it should be supported forever. XP was supported for eight years, up to 2009. By then you could get Windows 7. I'd venture to say that even Vista was a better option except for the intrusive UAC defaults.

[Friendly]

Yeah, I used to be a big Windows XP fan until a few years ago when I got a virus and because MS's customer support is fucking horrible I was basically left with no choice but to recover my files with an Ubuntu live CD and install it. Never looked back. It's amazing how much faster, safer, and easier it is. It also comes with all kinds of free software to make it easy to do anything you were doing on Windows and makes it easy to install anything else you might need. It can be annoying if you want to play Touhou or some other Windows game but it still lets you just make a small Windows partition and boot into that whenever you get the itch.

I love the assumption that nearly decade-old software should be as stable and quick as new releases, and also that it should be supported forever. XP was supported for eight years, up to 2009. By then you could get Windows 7. I'd venture to say that even Vista was a better option except for the intrusive UAC defaults.

I love the assumption that Windows 7 even existed when he chose to install Ubuntu.

Side note: Ubuntu 10 is faster (booting,processing) than Windows 7.

[Ed Oscuro]

I love the assumption that Windows 7 even existed when he chose to install Ubuntu.

I love that this is too hard for you to comprehend:

Stating that by the time Windows XP support was dropped (which is only partially true) Windows 7 was available is stating a fact. That's not saying that Gus moved to Ubuntu at that time. But I was aware of this, and so I mentioned Vista - and Vista really is most of the way to being Windows 7. As Vista has been around for over 5 years, you're really stretching "a couple years ago."

Microsoft's support, incidentally, is not "we will guarantee that we can fix any files you kept on old software." Especially not nearly decade-old software that's probably not being locked down appropriately and kept up with a modern antivirus. I don't expect the Linux crowd would look very favorably on anybody still using a distro build from 2001. And actually XP is still being maintained, more or less: Service Pack 3 is still being maintained and you can still use Windows Update to bring it up to speed (you can still do this for Windows 98, too).

Side note: Ubuntu 10 is faster (booting,processing) than Windows 7.

I am currently aware of a grand total of one program that is available for Ubuntu, but not Windows, that I'd like to use. The reverse isn't even close to being true. The open source community has been pretty good about keeping Windows users supported. Sure, this is an argument for inertia, but I'm not going to give up using all the Windows programs I regularly use just to stick it to the man.

I have no problem with folks using Linux (that'd be pretty bizarre). I do have a problem with folks thinking that they could buy commercial software, that is not guaranteed to work forever, and yet have it do exactly that. We can sit here and argue about Microsoft's value proposition until Tucows come home, but many people are going to prove that they only manage a computer by constantly upgrading to the newest thing and riding the wave of security (or obscurity), because they don't know how to manage software (older or otherwise) for security.

[Friendly]

Hint for new Linux users or those who would like to become Linux users: Wine
Enjoy!

http://appdb.winehq.org/

[cools]

I'm looking forward to it. Anything that brings touchscreens to mainstream computing (thus reducing their price) is high on my list of good things that can happen.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hint for new Linux users or those who would like to become Linux users: Wine
Enjoy!

http://appdb.winehq.org/

"There are very few (if any) Win64 applications which do not have Win32 versions, so this isn't a problem."
teehee!

OK, snark aside, I didn't realize WINE was just like a software library in its emulation (well, so they say). However, it's a bit disingenuous of them to say "even newer versions of Windows must load extra resources to support older applications." They really ought to cut out 3/4 of that article and its weasel words and just put in some benchmarks (input lag, of course...)

[njiska]

Hint for new Linux users or those who would like to become Linux users: Wine
Enjoy!

http://appdb.winehq.org/

You're starting to sound a lot like a Jehovah's Witness that can't take the hint.

Anyway, what's this "Apps" business njiska is talking about?

We have a name for Apps on Windows, "programs."

I'm anticipating that you'll still be able to select the Classic (Win9X-esque) setup in 8, just like every previous version.

Actually Ed, in Windows 8 you have "Apps". The "All Programs" list no longer exists and so far the only way I've found to get a similar list is to go to search, which brings up the "Apps" list.



And unfortunately as of this build there is no option to run your system in a Win 7-esque way. No way to bring back the start menu, no way to use a non-ribbon approach to folders, no way to disable the new UI fluff. Now this may just be because they want to see how people adapt to the new UI, but from the sounds of everything coming out of Redmond it looks like the options won't be in the final build either.

wrote a long response

I think for the most part you and I are actually in agreement. The only difference in our opinions is that you seem to want total control, while I'm willing to try to adapt before running off and finding a different OS to do things my way. Believe it or not I actually ran Debian Sarge and Debian Etch as my primary Desktop OS from 2006-2009 and while I loved the freedom and stability that came with it, by the end it just simply became too much of a hassle. I've realized that it's often far less of a time sync for me to just try learning and adapting to something new than it is to resist over a slight change in my routine. It's not a case of being a sheep so much as it's about taking the path of least resistance.

Currently my favourite OS is OS X (which I have only been using since November) and it's because of features like gestures that I never would have even tried using if the weren't forced upon me. Now that I've had a chance to use them, i love them. Yes the OS is designed with the easy-button mindset and Apple does not allow me to change settings I would expect to change like what happens when I close my MacBook's lid, but these are not issues I encounter on a day-to-day basis. On top of that most of the locked out settings can still be changed by either using a 3rd party application or by just manually changing a plist file. It's more work than it should be and I completely agree with you that Advanced configurations should be easy to locate, but it's just not a game breaker. Yes there's a lack of choice, but it's in areas I don't care about for the most part and going with a different OS would be more hassle than what I would gain.

[z0mbie90]

I want Windows XP-reborn edition.

Original XP works for me. Shame it proberbly wont be supported anymore. I really don't like the new Windows versions.

[Dan Hibiki]

I don't understand what is the real problem with the absence of the Start Menu. If you use Windows 7 you have probably pinned your most used applications on the taskbar itself so you would be probably using the Start Menu just to look for that program that you don't use that often.

And, to be honest, even when I do use the Start Menu on Win7, I'll just use the keyboard, it is much easier and faster since it is just one keypress and start typing the name of the program I want and the built-in search will find it. This behaviour seems to be the same on Win8 from what I have been reading.

If you look at the blog posts the Windows team have been doing, they actually analyzed what users have been doing and the majority behave the way I just described. That's why they changed it, because it seems to be the logical thing to do since most people are already doing it that way.

I must say haven't tried the Consumer Preview yet, but from what I understand, the non-Metro stuff is pretty much still the same with the exception of the start menu. I will probably try the final build, because some changes they have made on the Windows Explorer copy dialog are definitely worth it.

Regarding Windows vs. all other OS, I see no real problems with Ubuntu, but it seems weird that people will accuse MS for changing things "for the sake of changing" while Ubuntu has been doing that for a while and way worse than MS (changing the side of the close/minimize/maximize buttons has no real purpose other than be MacOS-like). I haven't really tried to use Unity so I can't criticize it.

But if all the applications available for Linux suits you, that's great. I can't say that this is true for me even if I do some programming on it when I want/need (and it is a good system at that, btw). I see no real replacement for foobar2000 (essentially, all music players on Linux are terrible) and I won't go through the hassle of configuring Wine to run my games when they just work on Windows.

Now, Mac OS is just a terrible OS. It gets on my way of doing things all the time and that's exactly what an OS is supposed not to do. I just feel that I am terribly unproductive using it. Keyboard shortcuts are inconsistent even between system applications and completely different from what is the standard on Windows/Linux, the mouse acceleration is the worst thing I have ever witnessed, alt-tabbing is almost useless, trying to deploy an app bundle on another system is a nightmare, everytime I use Finder I want my Windows Explorer back (and I don't really like the Win7 Explorer)... All of this is without considering the price...

[njiska]

I don't understand what is the real problem with the absence of the Start Menu. If you use Windows 7 you have probably pinned your most used applications on the taskbar itself so you would be probably using the Start Menu just to look for that program that you don't use that often.

The problem isn't so much that the Start Menu no longer exists, as it is that everything I used to know how to find under the start menu has been shuffled around and moved to drastically different locations. Just finding a simple option like Shut Down took close to 20 minutes. In order to find it you have to open the charms hotbar on the right, then select settings, than click power. To me that is non-intuitive. Why is shutdown under settings? It is not a setting. The same problem happens when trying to find an application, seldom used or otherwise.

The biggest issue I have is that nothing is intuitive and some of the locations for items are actually counter intuitive if you've ever used a computer before. If there was a simple tutorial that explained the changes, like you get with an OS X upgrade, it would make all the difference in the world. That and the more I look at the Metro start screen, the uglier I find it.

[Ex-Cyber]

I don't understand what is the real problem with the absence of the Start Menu. If you use Windows 7 you have probably pinned your most used applications on the taskbar itself so you would be probably using the Start Menu just to look for that program that you don't use that often.

AFAICT, pinning sucks (buttons move around if window titles are enabled, scripts can't be directly pinned, some programs don't pin correctly). I still use the Quick Launch bar, which somehow works fine despite Microsoft's claims that it no longer exists.

And, to be honest, even when I do use the Start Menu on Win7, I'll just use the keyboard, it is much easier and faster since it is just one keypress and start typing the name of the program I want and the built-in search will find it. This behaviour seems to be the same on Win8 from what I have been reading.

The search only covers "apps" by default (or did in the Developer Preview). You have to click a separate button to search control panels and so on, which I find pretty annoying. For example, in Vista/7 you can just hit the Windows key and start typing "Device" to get to Device Manager. In Windows 8, Device Manager won't come up because it's a "settings" item and not an "app".

[Ed Oscuro]

In light of what njiska's describing...blah. I hope people and developers, developers, developers are giving Microsoft an earful.

I don't understand what is the real problem with the absence of the Start Menu. If you use Windows 7 you have probably pinned your most used applications on the taskbar itself so you would be probably using the Start Menu just to look for that program that you don't use that often.

AFAICT, pinning sucks (buttons move around if window titles are enabled, scripts can't be directly pinned, some programs don't pin correctly). I still use the Quick Launch bar, which somehow works fine despite Microsoft's claims that it no longer exists.

I had some small trouble with taskbar pinning when I first got 7, but now it's second nature. While I agree that everything should have the same functionality, in practice the only thing I've got there that's standard is the Libraries button, and it's great to be able to pin / unpin other programs at a whim to call them up quickly or dismiss them.

The one thing that I really despise about the current implementation of pinning is the hovering mechanism (at least in Classic mode). When you right-click, it expands the list of items (folders, open program windows, etc.), but after a moment (depending on your setting) a border is added and you will need to move your mouse. More than a couple times I've accidentally unpinned Windows Explorer's entry (the Library) when trying to get to a top-level folder quickly, and Firefox as well. On top of that, Firefox occasionally will pin at a new spot on the taskbar, as well, instead of pinning the open windows - only shutting it down and restarting will fix that, which increases the aggravation level further.

I thought I had this more or less fixed with a registry tweak, but of course I didn't.