Draginol Draginol

Windows 8 Beta is a UI nightmare

▼

Windows 8 Beta is a UI nightmare

from JoeUser Forums

Got to play around with the February beta of Windows 8. It is terrible. It is beyond terrible. It is so bad that I’m a little panicked about the future of Windows. People won’t use this.

I could have teams of people working full time to develop products to fix it but we’re not in the business of making a terrible experience good. We’re in the business of making a good experience better.

No sane person, will consider the user experience of this beta acceptable. Even a die hard Windows advocate cannot be pleased. It’s that bad.

I’m all over adapting to new UI conventions if they’re as good or better. But that’s not the case here. This is just terrible.

I have confidence in Microsoft in delivering innovative technology (Windows Phone is excellent). But something went terribly wrong here.

image

Start button: Gone.

image

Everything is in a corner. Type in top right, move to far left.

image

This is the new “Start” menu.  Note: Fresh install. Luckily, no one installs anything right?

Click…
image

and…be taken here:
image

 

But someday, everything will be metro right?

That’ll be the world of:

image

The 2560x1440 weather widget. Microsoft Window 9 (we can dispense with “Windows”).

 

Everything requires lots of clickity click click and lots of mouse drag. Less of an issue on a mobile device but on a desktop? If they didn’t force you to live in-between worlds (you’re not allowed to live in just the desktop remember, you have to come back to the Metro-tablet like experience).

image

What’s really a bummer is that Windows 8’s desktop is really good. Better than Windows 7. But you’re not allowed to live here. They treat the desktop as a kind of DOS box equivalent even though, for desktop users, it’s a vastly more productive experience.

Update 1:

It's not just that they got rid of the Start button -- on the classic desktop. Navigating around is just a pain. Getting to your stuff is a pain. It's lots of clicks and drags to do anything, even basic stuff. 

Remember how annoying the UAC prompt can be when it darkens the screen interrupting your flow? Well going back and forth between Metro and classic is far worse and far more frequent.

Let me put it this way, this is bad enough that there will almost certainly be YouTube videos demonstrating some of the absurdities of use. We're not talking nit-picking type issues here, we're talking fundamental, baffling user experience choices. And that's without touching on performance (10 seconds to load up the mail program?).

Update 2:


You be the judge:

Bear in mind, this is on a clean system. Imagine how this system falls apart when you have dozens of programs installed -- some metro and some Win32.  I can't even imagine trying to explain how this works to a typical enterprise customer or worse..my mom.

Update 3:

Here’s a quick stop gap solution for the Start menu issue:

https://www.stardock.com/products/start8

349,767 views 95 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Savyg, reply 21
Anyway, I know Frogboy had issues with IE9 that I didn't also so...make of that what you will.  I will have more to actually say when I have the download.  (Apparently both my wireless bridges are crap, so I need to get a card.  Whee)
End of Savyg's quote

Yea, I did think IE 9 was bloated.

How's IE 9 been working out?

Market share of IE:

 

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

Yeah that's fantastic, when you make it only show Vista and 7 users.

Since XP users need not apply it was guaranteed that IEs marketshare would drop.

I don't use IE9 because of the speed not the interface.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 15

Quoting Savyg, reply 14Once people get past the initial shock and WinRT apps start popping up it'll make a lot more sense.

Speaking from the dev preview, once I learned it I loved it (aside from it very obviously being not ready.)

Sadly won't have my copy of the CP til pretty late so I'll let ya know when that happens, but I enjoyed what I used.

Really? You think we're going to see a Metro version of Office, Photoshop, or any of the other main apps that people use any time soon?

I don't mind Metro. I like it.  But it does not work well on the desktop and won't work well on the desktop any time soon. Being jerked back and forth between metro and the desktop is a terrible idea.
End of Frogboy's quote

 

Question: is this going to impact Stardock in terms of causing you to diversify into other OS's?  I don't think it will, but if GalCiv III ran on Macs , I would actually consider getting one.

 

I really don't think Win8 is going to do all that well on desktops/laptops.

 

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

It's the idea that we don't need a computer anymore--just an oversized desktop smartphone--that's the problem.

Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Getting to your stuff is a pain. It's lots of clicks and drags to do anything, even basic stuff.
Remember how annoying the UAC prompt can be when it darkens the screen interrupting your flow? Well going back and forth between Metro and classic is far worse and far more frequent.
End of quote

Wow. o_O

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Huh. I'm planning on installing the preview on my mother's new computer to test it until her job gets a copy of Windows 7 to her. I wonder if it'll be good enough to use as a stopgap until then? 

So, when is Stardock going to port their stuff to Mac and Linux? ;)

 

Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top

Is there any possibility of running Metro on one monitor and the Desktop on the other? Other than using Multiplicity and/or Synergy, at least. 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

It reminds me of the monitor on the cash register at Mimi's Cafe.  Or almost any other restaurant these days.

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top

I made a video outlining what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efqpryu5SRI

Keep in mind, this is on a fresh install. This is the ideal environment. Wait until you throw in a mix of Metro and desktop apps together. I don't know about you guys but I have a lot of things installed.

Reply #35 from WinCustomize Forums Top

For me, Win 8 is a flop at best and not something I will invest in unless radical changes are made to it.  Meaning, unless the classic desktop can be used without ever having to go into Metro, there is no way I would consider upgrading to it... or should that be downgrading?  I read that security in Win 8 has improved upon Win 7, and that it will natively manage ISO files, so no need for 3rd party apps, but this improvement/addition would not be enough to entice me if one cannot escape having to use Metro.

I didn't even download the developer preview to check it out, the screen caps were enough to turn me off, not to mention the considered opinions of various members here who I did try it out.  That nauseating green background was more than enough to put me off {MS could never get GUI colouring right], and with Metro being the default UI it was too great a hurdle for me.  Sure, the nauseating green is gone, but Metro has endured and therefore Win 8 is a dead set flop in my book.

:thumbsdown:

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's well known by now that this is Microsoft's business strategy for windows. Bad, Good, Bad, Good, Bad so that you can sell Good again.

Win 95: Good

Win 98: Bad

Win 98 SE: Good

Win ME: N/A

Windows 2000: Bad

Windows XP: Good

Windows Vista: Bad

Windows 7: Good

Windows 8: Bad

Windows 9: Good

Etc...

And we will always shut up and always use what they put out.

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

Like we have a choice? (if you need certain software for work).

And I agree starkers--that interface is bug-ugly.

Reply #38 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Sinperium, reply 37
Like we have a choice? (if you need certain software for work).

And I agree starkers--that interface is bug-ugly.
End of Sinperium's quote

Increasingly, we have choices.   

People can stick with Windows 7 and either Microsoft will make Windows 8+ a better user experience or they'll move to other OSes.

A lot of developers are in the position right now of having to choose between WinRT and iOS development. 

Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting adamsolo, reply 36
Windows 2000: Bad
End of adamsolo's quote

I skipped ME for 2000 and it was fantastic.  Started at SP2 iirc so can't say how it was before that.

Had some DRM issues with EA games but other than that I loved it.

Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Savyg, reply 39
I skipped ME for 2000 and it was fantastic.
End of Savyg's quote

Ditto...[ish]... other than people claiming 2000 was 'rock solid' and I BSOD'd about twice a day.... so much so I SKINNED the BSOD screen too....;p

Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Win 2000 sucked. I 86'd it and rolled back to 98SE. Much better.

Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 38
A lot of developers are in the position right now of having to choose between WinRT and iOS development.
End of Frogboy's quote

That simply shouldn't be!  WinRT for desktops and laptops, iOS for phones and tablets.  It should be as simple as that.  Now if MS wants to confuse matters by trying to marry/port one standard to or from the other, then it will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs.  There needs to be one defined standard for each platform and that's that, otherwise developers don't know where they stand.  Moreover, if they have to migrate from the standard they have used for several years to another, and/or cater to both, then software prices will rise

Reply #43 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 40

Quoting Savyg, reply 39I skipped ME for 2000 and it was fantastic.

Ditto...[ish]... other than people claiming 2000 was 'rock solid' and I BSOD'd about twice a day.... so much so I SKINNED the BSOD screen too....
End of Jafo's quote

I went straight from 98SE to XP... didn't bother with those in between, but then I was a late starter [didn't touch a PC until 2004] and had no need to try ME or 2000.  My first computer was a -486 with 98SE and, hehe, I remember dressing it up with Desktop Architect to brighten up its drab appearance... which was still streets ahead of that Fisher Price look of XP.   Hmmm, I wonder if MS will ever produce an OS with a half tolerable UI that doesn't near poke yer eye out with its gaudiness or plain drab, butt ugly look?

Hey, I can answer that!  Probably not.

Reply #44 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 40
Quoting Savyg, reply 39I skipped ME for 2000 and it was fantastic.

Ditto...[ish]... other than people claiming 2000 was 'rock solid' and I BSOD'd about twice a day.... so much so I SKINNED the BSOD screen too....
End of Jafo's quote
Seriously? o_O

Reply #45 from Stardock Forums Top

It just occured to me that most of the Windows release people seem to consider bad are transitional releases.  ME/2000 were both kind of a transition point for XP.

The good thing is now even the 'bad' releases are good, just different and need some work throughout the environment (MS, driver devs, program devs, etc.)

I could pretend Vista was awful like the rest of the MS haters, but after about eight months it was a great OS.  All the stupidity with OEMs contributed to its downfall (Acer defaulting their laptops to Power Saver mode for example, ugh.  So retarded.  Not to mention all the unnecessary crapware they and everyone else installed.)

So I expect this pattern to continue unabated, as if all MS did was spiffy up the same product they'd be shut out of a lot of markets (as has happened in mobile/tablets.)

Anyway, things to do people to see I should have it downloaded by morning.  Should be using it as my main OS before next week.

Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting RedneckDude, reply 44
Seriously?
End of RedneckDude's quote

Seriously.

I was running Litestep in 2k ...so no explorer GUI or file manager - the latter was Powerdesk.

The BSOD could be hacked to change the colour [in particular] so you could always be able to boast "I never get a BSOD" [cos it was a GSOD or RSOD, etc]...;p

Reply #47 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Cool....I never used it, but still....cool..

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Win2k was indeed rock solid for business/productivity apps.  I was reluctant to move to XP for awhile.  We still have 2 Win2k machines manufactured May 1997 running on our network, though both are special-purposed now and neither touches the internet.  Another stray dust mite & they'll be gone, I'm sure.

That aside, I can't see the Metro UI appealing to businesses, at least ones that need to get real work done efficiently.  Which must mean MS is targeting government contracts, I guess.  Yeah, that must be it.

Reply #49 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 26
Yea, I did think IE 9 was bloated.

How's IE 9 been working out? Market share of IE:
End of Frogboy's quote

I was a die-hard IE fan until IE 9 came out with that ugly UI, among other flaws. Now I use Firefox.

Reply #50 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I'm still using IE9 ....the only thing that's screwed is Canon 'webprint'...so anything that needs printing of receipts, etc.  I use Chrome.