Why the fuss about windows 8? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Togath

2013-06-02, 05:34 AM

With an operating system, the UI basically *is* the product. After all, what are they selling but a means of using a highly powerful computer that doesn't take a career in engineering?

My main point was more that it seems like it could be easily fixed, in the very least by just re-installign windows 7 if all else fails.
Also the only difference I noticed, other than the log-in screen being replaced by just a mouse click, were squared edges on everything(like windows 6) and the lack of a start button oddly(which I'm somewhat surprised no-one has bothered a hack a patch for).

Heliomance

2013-06-02, 05:36 AM

Aedilred

2013-06-02, 06:35 AM

With an operating system, the UI basically *is* the product. After all, what are they selling but a means of using a highly powerful computer that doesn't take a career in engineering?
I agree.

Also, what is this Windows 6 of which you speak? I've never heard of it before.I think by MS's product numbering, Vista was Windows 6 - although I'm not sure that's what the OP means, since 8 seems to have relatively little in common with Vista except for the negative way in which it's been received by large chunks of the userbase.

TSGames

2013-06-02, 02:51 PM

So I bought a new laptop today.
It turned out to have windows 8..
why do people keep fussing about it? It seems just fine to me(only difference is it's interface looks like windows 6, but that's hardly worth fussing over, as it's only tiny cosmetic change)

The majority of complaints come from 2 sources:
1) people's natural inability to push buttons on their keyboard to interact with their operating system. Pushing the Windows Key is not difficult. Neither is Windows Key + x or downloading the "Windows 8 keyboard shortcuts" app for free. But no matter how you slice it, it is a fact that most people have extreme difficultly with keyboard shortcuts beyond alt + tab and ctrl + v; Microsoft failed to realize this and put users in a situation where they could do so much more, but had to use the keyboard shortcuts to do what they could do with a GUI in windows 7.

2)People's inability to understand that the desktop and the metro interface are two different environments. If you don't want to, you never have to see the metro environment. Ever (http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/make-windows-8-boot-straight-to-the-desktop/6976). This confused people and when they get confused they get angry and post lots of nonsensical crap all over the internet. Microsoft really Ballmered this one.

Microsoft could have solved both of these wetware issues by using a software based solution: offering the option (selected by default) on first boot or install to boot straight to Desktop, and leaving the start menu in tact. This would have made it effectively the same operating system as windows 7 as far as 99.99% of users are concerned and it could have kept the manifold array of improvements that Windows 8 sports over Windows 7 (quicker boot time, secure boot, address space layout randomization, and Windows Defender installed by default to name only a few).

In short, the complaints about Windows 8 are all based on the interface. Microsoft tried to force users to use a new GUI that is far from ideal for desktop and laptop environments while simultaneously removing familiar and liked elements of the GUI in exchange for more powerful keyboard options (even though there was no reason not to have both and it only served to confuse and anger users). Windows 8 is still hands down the best Windows operating system to date(it can even run ISO files stored on the local system by default), but Microsoft tried to force the users into a new environment and the users made it very clear that they didn't like that at all. Baby steps Microsoft, baby steps.

Also, I blame Steve Ballmer.

[EDIT]
Incidentally, I expect both of the changes I listed to be incorporated into the operating system when the Windows 8.1 update is released. It has already been confirmed that the start menu is coming back (http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/30/windows-8-1-to-get-start-button-boot-to-desktop-option/).

Eldan

2013-06-02, 02:56 PM

Is Ballmering a word, now?

TSGames

2013-06-02, 03:02 PM

Is Ballmering a word, now?

Ballmer

1 : one who screws up royally
2 : botch, blunder in unimaginably stupid ways

Examples of BALLMER

That was a major ballmer.
She's a ballmer who ruined an entire product line.
That's the ballmer who made Windows Bob!

factotum

2013-06-02, 03:10 PM

Incidentally, I expect both of the changes I listed to be incorporated into the operating system when the Windows 8.1 update is released. It has already been confirmed that the start menu is coming back (http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/30/windows-8-1-to-get-start-button-boot-to-desktop-option/).

You might want to read the linked article...it says quite clearly that the Start Menu is *not* coming back; all they're doing is putting an icon on the desktop taskbar that does the same as the Windows key and takes you back to Happy Toy Land.

TSGames

2013-06-02, 03:32 PM

You might want to read the linked article...it says quite clearly that the Start Menu is *not* coming back; all they're doing is putting an icon on the desktop taskbar that does the same as the Windows key and takes you back to Happy Toy Land.
Pardon me. I meant to type "button" not "menu".

Emmerask

2013-06-02, 04:48 PM

For normal use its not that bad, however some transition time is needed (which kind of is bad from a design standpoint).

For work you need double the clicks for most stuff compared to win7 so its not really good there.

Aedilred

2013-06-02, 04:52 PM

That's the ballmer who made Windows Bob!
In all seriousness, while MS Bob was by no means a marvellous tech product, I've never understood why it receives quite as much bile as it does. It was pretty redundant, but not aggressively terrible. It was responsible for foisting Comic Sans on the world, though, I suppose, and that's difficult to forgive.

Steward

2013-06-02, 07:26 PM

The only thing I didn't appreciate was the removal of the start panel that I usually have at the bottom of the screen. Other than that, I thought Windows 8 was on par with Windows 7. For my purposes, it didn't do anything noticeably better or noticeably worse, though the aesthetic was definitely different.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 03:59 AM

So I bought a new laptop today.
It turned out to have windows 8..
why do people keep fussing about it? It seems just fine to me(only difference is it's interface looks like windows 6, but that's hardly worth fussing over, as it's only tiny cosmetic change)

The interface is quite well designed for a touchscreen tablet. The interface is not at all well designed for a regular PC using a mouse or trackpad.

The larger issue is that they have forced a single unified interface on all users, rather than providing the option to choose between them depending on your needs.

I have no idea what you mean by Windows 6, but the interface looks and behaves nothing like the earlier versions of Windows for standard PCs.

My main point was more that it seems like it could be easily fixed, in the very least by just re-installign windows 7 if all else fails.

No, this is not possible to do for a lot of people legally unless they purchase an additional license for Windows 7. Only the OEM version of Windows 8 Pro comes with downgrade rights, regular Windows 8 does not. If your computer comes preinstalled with the regular Windows 8, you're out of luck unless you pay to purchase Windows 7. Alternatively, why pay to buy the new version, when you're just going to use the old one you already have? That's a waste of money...

Additionally, merely by installing a previous version of the operating system instead, you're admitting that the latest version is in some way inferior. Installing an old version defeats the purpose of having a new version. People are installing Windows 7 instead because they do prefer it to Windows 8. They dislike Windows 8 for one reason or another, and that is why they rolled back to Windows 7.

Also the only difference I noticed, other than the log-in screen being replaced by just a mouse click, were squared edges on everything(like windows 6) and the lack of a start button oddly(which I'm somewhat surprised no-one has bothered a hack a patch for).

The Welcome Screen (the home user log in screen) hasn't changed other than artwork, it's been that way since Windows XP.

The Start Screen is a horrible interface to use with a standard PC, though works much better with a touch screen tablet PC. It is completely different from the old Start Menu, in more ways than just looks. (Also, again, Windows 6?)

Someone did "hack a patch" to reintroduce the Start Menu in the prerelease version of Windows 8. Do you know how Microsoft responded? By going through and systematically removing all of the old code so that the Start Menu could not be reenabled in any future versions.

That said, there is an excellent third party interface which I use on Windows 8, which replaces and acts as the Start Menu. It also forces Windows 8 to skip the Start Screen and take me straight to the desktop.

It's free and called Classic Shell (http://www.classicshell.net).

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 05:03 AM

2)People's inability to understand that the desktop and the metro interface are two different environments. If you don't want to, you never have to see the metro environment. Ever (http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/make-windows-8-boot-straight-to-the-desktop/6976).

1. You are wrong, the ire is because people DO understand this. This is why they don't like it. This is why I don't like this. You are juggling two different environments, creating not only a very incoherent experience on the surface, the interface you are forced to switch to is completely unoptomized for the not-a-pad you are using. Instinctively as well as logicaly it just "feels wrong" because of this.

2. This might be a fix, but it is a very complicated fix (aka about 80% of the users I know would not dare to try to implement it themselves) and clearly an unofficial workaround. Besides, the "EVER" thing is a lie, you would still have to use the "icon screen startup thingie" every time you want to start a program or game that doesn't have icons on the task bar or desktop. The only way to avoid the touch-optimized second (or rather first, the desktop is the secondary inteface on windows 8) interface is to put every program you ever use as an icon on the desktop.

Is Ballmering a word, now?

Ballmer: A race of very round elves in the TES universe. :smalltongue:

You might want to read the linked article...it says quite clearly that the Start Menu is *not* coming back; all they're doing is putting an icon on the desktop taskbar that does the same as the Windows key and takes you back to Happy Toy Land.

REALLY? So Microsoft will still try to tell us that the users are wrong, and that if they don't own a touch-based computer or pad they should be punished since they are beneath catering to.

Also, why do I get the feeling that their long term goal is to get rid of the desktop interface completely?

It's free and called Classic Shell (http://www.classicshell.net).

Will install tonight.

TSGames

2013-06-03, 05:43 AM

1. You are wrong, the ire is because people DO understand this. This is why they don't like it. This is why I don't like this. You are juggling two different environments, creating not only a very incoherent experience on the surface, the interface you are forced to switch to is completely unoptomized for the not-a-pad you are using. Instinctively as well as logicaly it just "feels wrong" because of this.

Based off of the complaints that I've heard about Windows 8 I am in fact, not wrong even in the slightest. The general complaints tend be that people don't want to install apps and deal with the metro's poor windowing though most users never try to install the windows 7 version of the program into the desktop. This would indicate that they do not know that they are two different interfaces.

2. This might be a fix, but it is a very complicated fix (aka about 80% of the users I know would not dare to try to implement it themselves) and clearly an unofficial workaround. Besides, the "EVER" thing is a lie, you would still have to use the "icon screen startup thingie" every time you want to start a program or game that doesn't have icons on the task bar or desktop. The only way to avoid the touch-optimized second (or rather first, the desktop is the secondary inteface on windows 8) interface is to put every program you ever use as an icon on the desktop.

Again, the "ever" part is quite true for exactly what you said. 99% of users can fit all the programs they use onto the taskbar or the desktop with plenty of room to spare. I also agree that work around would be intimidating to some people, but I have no sympathy at all for people who cannot GOOGLE a solution to their problem and follow the steps to fix it, instead finding it easier to keep using an older OS and complain about a fixable problem.

I agree Microsoft should not have tried to force users to adapt to these changes. None the less; it is still the most secure and best performing Windows operating system to date. To give that up because you don't want to put the 5 programs you use on the task bar seems more than a little silly to me =/

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 05:47 AM

Again, the "ever" part is quite true for exactly what you said. 99% of users can fit all the programs they use onto the taskbar or the desktop with plenty of room to spare. I also agree that work around would be intimidating to some people, but I have no sympathy at all for people who cannot GOOGLE a solution to their problem and follow the steps to fix it, instead finding it easier to keep using an older OS and complain about a fixable problem.

The problem with googling an OS-level fix is that they are not supported by the manufacturer, and there is so much bad data on the net that even careful reading is often not enough to distinguish it from good data, and this also relies on the assumption that the fix you are thinking of actually exists and is being publicised enough to get a reasonable ranking on the search engines.

Advertising a "windows 8 fix" that is actually a malware rootkit would seem to be an excellent black hat strategy round about now.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 06:10 AM

Based off of the complaints that I've heard about Windows 8 I am in fact, not wrong even in the slightest. The general complaints tend be that people don't want to install apps and deal with the metro's poor windowing though most users never try to install the windows 7 version of the program into the desktop. This would indicate that they do not know that they are two different interfaces.

Again, the "ever" part is quite true for exactly what you said. 99% of users can fit all the programs they use onto the taskbar or the desktop with plenty of room to spare. I also agree that work around would be intimidating to some people, but I have no sympathy at all for people who cannot GOOGLE a solution to their problem and follow the steps to fix it, instead finding it easier to keep using an older OS and complain about a fixable problem.

I have not experienced that at all, except for the already installed apps. Meaning people who still uses IE will cry foul even louder, since they might not know there is a desktop IE as well. However the ignorance works the other way in my experience; most people when installing new software on W8 do not know how to instal apps, so they don't even try. They download the desktop version almost automatically.

As for googling... it is an easy attitude to have if you do not know any normal (non computer savvy) users. First of all many users just thinks that if it is not the default setting, it cannot be changed so they don't even look for a solution. The second thing is that even people who do, might be too scared to do something wrong and ruin their computer somehow.*

*truly non computer savvy people, in my experience, tend to come in two kinds: the most common type that is annoying to support because they are too nervous to actually change ANYTHING, and argues against things like automatic updates because it once upgraded from IE 7 to IE 8 and that after that they could not find their Favorites, and the even more annoying to support, the ones that cannot help but change EVERYTHING (but yet, when you ask, claim they didn't click on anything), that manage to do everything from changing language in Chrome to Arabic, delete icons from the desktop or even format their harddrive by mistake.

thubby

2013-06-03, 06:29 AM

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 06:46 AM

Finlam

2013-06-03, 07:17 AM

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 07:24 AM

Just to play some devil's advocate.

The above quote is a rather fantastic example of bias. Googling is not necessary at all, lol. Just hit the Windows key on boot *BAM* straight to Desktop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU

Finlam

2013-06-03, 07:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU

/a little more devil's advocate

It really seems like all the complaints come back to it not booting straight to desktop. If only there was an upcoming patch to fix that =P

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 07:30 AM

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 07:30 AM

/a little more devil's advocate

It really seems like all the complaints come back to it not booting straight to desktop. If only there was an upcoming patch to fix that =P

Did you actually watch that?

Also, my 'complaint' earlier has nothing to do with that. Not booting straight to desktop is only one failing of many. The Start Screen is a massive failure for non touchscreen tablet PCs.

Finlam

2013-06-03, 07:50 AM

Did you actually watch that?

To be honest, all I saw was a confused old man who would have been almost equally confused if I'd moved one of his desktop shortcuts to a different location in windows XP.

Then again, maybe that is a perfect example of the typical Windows user; that seems to be the argument being made throughout the thread. You guys paint a pretty grim picture of the average user. I hope you're wrong, but you're probably not.

137beth

2013-06-03, 07:55 AM

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 08:02 AM

Can anyone who likes windows 8 make a case for the touch-screen-optimized interface on a desktop? I understand that it is largely bypassable, but is there really a benefit to having it at all:smallconfused:

(not a win8 user)

I can see it being useful in a physical device that was designed from the outset to use that interface. This includes most of the tabl;et sized devices smaller than a laptop PC, and also includes some newly-design "integrated (https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/images/products/3396/3_big.jpg?28)" systems. But with hardware that was physical designed with the old keyboard/mouse paradigm in mind, I don't see it being advantageous.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 08:03 AM

To be honest, all I saw was a confused old man who would have been almost equally confused if I'd moved one of his desktop shortcuts to a different location in windows XP.

Then again, maybe that is a perfect example of the typical Windows user; that seems to be the argument being made throughout the thread. You guys paint a pretty grim picture of the average user. I hope you're wrong, but you're probably not.

Most people use their computer (still) as a tool. They still see it as a combination of one or more of the following:

A glorified typewriter
The Home Shopping Network
A Playstation
A Porn Distribution Network
A Casino

They don't learn how to tweak it and optimize it because it is, from their point of view, not their job. It's either the store they bought it from or Microsoft's responsibility to fix things. Most people are prepared to do more "do-it-yourself" work on their CARS than on their computers.

I don't see this as a "grim" view; I see it as a realistic view.

Can anyone who likes windows 8 make a case for the touch-screen-optimized interface on a desktop? I understand that it is largely bypassable, but is there really a benefit to having it at all:smallconfused:

The benefit is null, unless you have a touch-screen with low resolution. It is mostly optimized for a small (10" or smaller) screen. On the other hand on such a device the desktop interface is bad. So there's that.

The real benefit is on MS side; they get to only release a single OS without having to tweak it for different platforms, thus saving money and makes it easier to "herd" the customers towards the future they want.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 08:03 AM

Flickerdart

2013-06-03, 08:13 AM

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 08:19 AM

way, you can fit more stuff on it, and don't need to go through cascading dropdown menus, which are the bane of good UI design.

What start page are you looking at? There is no way I could fit as much things on this page than in my old start menu without having to scroll. Just by looking at it, it would seem I can fit roughly 30% of the items I could fit on my start menu, and that is with far worse sorting than on a start menu.

(Another issue is that it scrolls sideways instead of downwards, which is the correct way on a PC with a mouse wheel)

As for fullscreen as such: The bigger screen you have, the worse the idea of a full-screen based UI is.

AMX

2013-06-03, 08:22 AM

Can anyone who likes windows 8 make a case for the touch-screen-optimized interface on a desktop? I understand that it is largely bypassable, but is there really a benefit to having it at all:smallconfused:

Well... the live tiles would probably be readable on my tertiary screen - that's a smallish CRT, slightly blurry, and relatively far away, so not much use at the moment.
If I can move the start screen over there, and keep it open while I work on the desktop, it can serve notifications and stuff, I guess.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 08:29 AM

What's wrong with it being full screen? I have literally never had a case when I needed to have the start menu up and yet had to keep looking at something on the screen. Maybe if there was a Weeping Angel there, or something. This way, you can fit more stuff on it, and don't need to go through cascading dropdown menus, which are the bane of good UI design.

Where to start...

You can't fit more stuff on it, because for some reason they decided that each button should be so much bigger.

I can press the Start Button and get immediate access to every major OS feature I need, as well as the the applications I have pinned and the most frequently accessed programs, all right there without blocking the programs I have open. The majority of what I need is right there, either without opening a sub menu or in the first sub menu, and I can keep whatever I am monitoring, watching, or doing open and visible. This includes instant messaging, server monitoring, movies/video clips (including YouTube), status bars (installing, maintenance, loading, downloading, etc.), equipment/software health, etc. etc.

Cascading menus are a lot more convenient than everything being on the one screen which you have to scroll horizontally to find, or cascading folders.

Making it full screen is entirely unnecessary. Why take away the whole screen when you can do something much more efficiently and effectively in a tiny corner of the screen?

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 08:37 AM

Can anyone who likes windows 8 make a case for the touch-screen-optimized interface on a desktop? I understand that it is largely bypassable, but is there really a benefit to having it at all:smallconfused:

Oh, forgot to point this out:

I LOVE W8. I love everything about it except the Metro interface (AFAIR MS named the new interface Metro before making sure nobody had trademarked the name. So it is actually officially NOT called Metro after RC1. Just that everybody calls it that).

W8 starts very very fast.
It is very stable.
I actually like the simple art style.
It uses less computer power than both Vista and 7.

So I put up with Metro the interface for now. But now Rawhide have made me curious about the program he is using to have W8 work with a start menu. It will be installed tonight.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 08:43 AM

So I put up with Metro the interface for now. But now Rawhide have made me curious about the program he is using to have W8 work with a start menu. It will be installed tonight.

It's great. You can configure it to work like Windows 9x, 2000, XP, Vista, or 7. You can use skins to make it look like them too, including a skin that makes it look like a shrunken Metro interface (what I'm using). Then you can granularly drill down to add, move, remove, rearrange, and reconfigure features just the way you like them.

Oh, and did I mention it was open source?

Salbazier

2013-06-03, 08:44 AM

Oddly, now I'm interested to try Windows 8 (provided I can work around the interface). Other than what has been mentioned already, what other advantage windows 8 has over its predecessor?

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 08:54 AM

Oddly, now I'm interested to try Windows 8 (provided I can work around the interface). Other than what has been mentioned already, what other advantage windows 8 has over its predecessor?

As I said, its main benefit is that it do use less resources than 7, and a lot less resources than Vista. It even faster than XP on machines that are modern enough that they let you upgrade to 8.

It's backwards compability as I have been told is a bit weird; for 95% of all games it is BETTER than 7, but there are a few old games that just refuses to work that worked on 7. My personal guess is that those games were not 100% "up to code" for XP / 2000 and used shortcuts in the programming that 7 allowed but 8 slammed shut. But that is just a guess; it has happened before. All games I have tried on it works without a hitch.

Oh, and did I mention it was open source?

Yes. Or well you said "it is free". Which is close enough and usually means that it is.

137beth

2013-06-03, 08:58 AM

Oh, forgot to point this out:

I LOVE W8. I love everything about it except the Metro interface (AFAIR MS named the new interface Metro before making sure nobody had trademarked the name. So it is actually officially NOT called Metro after RC1. Just that everybody calls it that).

W8 starts very very fast.
It is very stable.
I actually like the simple art style.
It uses less computer power than both Vista and 7.

So I put up with Metro the interface for now. But now Rawhide have made me curious about the program he is using to have W8 work with a start menu. It will be installed tonight.
Well, yea, I understand the upgrades to non-interface stuff. But what possible benefit could there be to the metro UI over giving the OS the upgrades of windows 8 but keeping a reasonable interface?

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 09:01 AM

Well, yea, I understand the upgrades to non-interface stuff. But what possible benefit could there be to the metro UI over giving the OS the upgrades of windows 8 but keeping a reasonable interface?

That, I do not know.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 09:02 AM

Eldan

2013-06-03, 09:27 AM

To be honest, all I saw was a confused old man who would have been almost equally confused if I'd moved one of his desktop shortcuts to a different location in windows XP..

Not that confused. I've seen way worse. He looked if there were any hidden sidebars along all sides of the Screen, he checked and read every Icon in the toolbar, he clicked everything on the screen. Pretty systematic. He didn't try the Keyboard, because, well, most people I know never ever use Keyboard shortcuts for anything, not even copy-pasting.

thubby

2013-06-03, 09:48 AM

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 09:51 AM

the fact that people have to google how to do the basic things they've been doing on their computers for x years means microsoft failed miserably.

the ONE THING windows is supposed to do is make the machine simpler and more intuitive for users. if you have to ask how to do something, the creators made it wrong.
Eh... not necessarily. Sometimes a paradigm shift can be a good thing. If, once people have learnt the new interface, they can be more productive on it than they could on the old, then it's an improvement. (Note that I'm not interested in an argument as to whether this is the case or not with Win8, I'm just making a general point)

It's possible to get locked in a rut with design, and reach a point of diminishing returns. Breaking the trend results in a short period of turmoil as people get used to the new system, and then everything carries on as normal - or, ideally, better. Sometimes it is indeed best to throw everything out and start from scratch. And arguing that it isn't is treading dangerously close to the Sunk Costs Fallacy.

And how do you know that without googling?

Because Win+D has been the shortcut to show the desktop since I can remember. It's one of the shortcuts that every competent Windows user should know, along with alt-tab and ctrl-alt-del.

As for the start screen, I can if I want fit 36 different programs onto the front page, without needing to scroll. That's way more than fit on the old start menu without opening the "all programs" menu - hell, it's more than I can ever see myself needing - and the icons are nice and big and instantly recognisable. Also, the grid layout means (at least for me, as I have very good pattern memorisation skills) that it's a lot easier for me to remember the position of my regularly used programs than it is in a vertical list. Add to that the fact that I don't need to dive through cascading menus, and the really good and convenient search feature, and, well...

http://i.imgflip.com/1sstx.jpg

Soras Teva Gee

2013-06-03, 10:19 AM

Just to play some devil's advocate.

The above quote is a rather fantastic example of bias. Googling is not necessary at all, lol. Just hit the Windows key + D on boot *BAM* straight to Desktop.

Is Apple paying you commission to steal me from Microsoft?Seriously this is a great argument to ditch Windows. You should charge.

Now instead of maneuvering my mouse on the GUI I have to use my other hand to press not one but too keys. My other hand may not even be near the keyboard. I'm doubling or tripling my time here. And hitting 2+ keys is what I do when nothing else works. If I'm hitting them I'm Ctrl+Alt+Del.

If I have to learn an entire new way to operate I might as well switch to the one that doesn't tick me off and I've a passing familiarity with.

(I would love to say this is hyperbole but basic access and navigation is of primary importance. Keyboard shortcuts are for tech nerds in the 80s, they're entirely what the GUI is supposed to avoid as its primary mission. Its fine they're there as a an option but needing to use them... no)

Emmerask

2013-06-03, 10:32 AM

Eh... not necessarily. Sometimes a paradigm shift can be a good thing. If, once people have learnt the new interface, they can be more productive on it than they could on the old, then it's an improvement. (Note that I'm not interested in an argument as to whether this is the case or not with Win8, I'm just making a general point)

you are correct that transition time to a new improved system is in general acceptable if it actually improves something...
however without making the argument why in the case of win8 it increases productivity and therefore justifies the transition time this is kind of a null argument :smalltongue:

For me win8 decreases productivity (not by much but in general I have to use more clicks to achieve the same thing) and I even have a touchscreen notebook ^^

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 10:45 AM

Because Win+D has been the shortcut to show the desktop since I can remember. It's one of the shortcuts that every competent Windows user should know, along with alt-tab and ctrl-alt-del.

If that is true, then I can say hand on heart there are no competent Windows users where I currently work. I have seen offices where the entire site gets by quite happily without knowing the existence of ANY of the keyboard short-cuts, not even Control-C. Most PC users work on the maxim "Out of sight, out of mind". If they can't see it, it doesn't exist for the task at hand until they bring it into view.

Consider there are at least four (five if you count entering the command line interface) different ways to copy a file from one folder to another (there may well be one I have forgotten about). The average user doesn't need to know all of them. It's not really a wonder that the least visibly obvious of the four options gets forgotten about. My short-cut for minimising everything so I can see the desktop is an icon that sits in the system tray in the bottom right corner of my screen. Significantly, this is more visible and thus easier to use — the visibility acts as a memory aid.

(fwiw, I don't know of anyone who routinely uses the windows key for anything other than bringing up a start menu. And yes, I am MCDST and MCP certified).

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 10:53 AM

Is Apple paying you commission to steal me from Microsoft?Seriously this is a great argument to ditch Windows. You should charge.

Now instead of maneuvering my mouse on the GUI I have to use my other hand to press not one but too keys. My other hand may not even be near the keyboard. I'm doubling or tripling my time here. And hitting 2+ keys is what I do when nothing else works. If I'm hitting them I'm Ctrl+Alt+Del.

I... what?

Sure, I can accept that not everyone knows keyboard shortcuts. If you take the time to learn them, though, they are a hell of a lot faster than any mouse-based control can be at the things they do. Because the keyboard is right there. It's a lot faster to hit two keys than it is to move the mouse to a particular point on the screen and click. Because you get to use your proprioception as a feedback method on the movement. Moving a mouse, the only indication you have of where the cursor is is visual, and fine adjustments slow you down. Moving your hand, precision is a lot easier and faster. This is indisputable biological fact.

For me to hit Win+D from my standard computer use position takes maybe a quarter of a second - for me, and I would have thought most computer users, my left hand barely ever leaves the keyboard. On the other hand, using a trackpad, moving the cursor down to the bottom corner of the screen and clicking can very easily take 2 seconds.

Keyboard shortcuts really do increase speed. The main reason I use Chrome instead of Firefox is because I always press alt-S instead of clicking the submit post button, and Firefox hijacks alt-S to open the History menu instead. Does that mean you never use ctrl-x, ctrl-c, and ctrl-v as well? Because if you don't, and you ever need to cut, copy, or paste things, you're wasting a lot of time.

SteveMB

2013-06-03, 10:53 AM

I LOVE W8. I love everything about it except the Metro interface

The problem is that "the interface" is so omnipresent that liking everything else about Win8 is like Mrs. Lincoln liking everything else about her evening watching Our American Cousin.

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 10:59 AM

The problem is that "the interface" is so omnipresent that liking everything else about Win8 is like Mrs. Lincoln liking everything else about her evening watching Our American Cousin.

"But apart from that, Madame President, how was the play?"

Flickerdart

2013-06-03, 11:08 AM

The problem is that "the interface" is so omnipresent that liking everything else about Win8 is like Mrs. Lincoln liking everything else about her evening watching Our American Cousin.
If by omnipresent you mean "comes up once when you boot, and then you click Desktop and never have to look at it again".

Soras Teva Gee

2013-06-03, 11:21 AM

I... what?

Sure, I can accept that not everyone knows keyboard shortcuts. If you take the time to learn them, though, they are a hell of a lot faster than any mouse-based control can be at the things they do. Because the keyboard is right there. It's a lot faster to hit two keys than it is to move the mouse to a particular point on the screen and click. Because you get to use your proprioception as a feedback method on the movement. Moving a mouse, the only indication you have of where the cursor is is visual, and fine adjustments slow you down. Moving your hand, precision is a lot easier and faster. This is indisputable biological fact.

When I'm doing anything but typing my hand is quite often no where near the keyboard. More to the point even its not "in use" as it were. Instead of pointing and clicking with the hand I'm already designating navigation I now need to position my left hand and have it multitask.

Its irrelevant how much faster someone used to it can be, its neither as simple nor as intuitive.

Keyboard shortcuts really do increase speed. The main reason I use Chrome instead of Firefox is because I always press alt-S instead of clicking the submit post button, and Firefox hijacks alt-S to open the History menu instead. Does that mean you never use ctrl-x, ctrl-c, and ctrl-v as well? Because if you don't, and you ever need to cut, copy, or paste things, you're wasting a lot of time.

I do indeed those are among the few I use when I'm doing work, not basic navigation. I don't need them to point and click around to bring up the movie I want to watch on my laptop.

And there's a universe of difference between being an option and being a requirement.

You tell me I "have" to and I say "No I don't, because I don't have to use your product" and act accordingly.

I don't mind keyboard shortcuts but they are not "better" and I'm not going to buy a system that didn't lost the old memo from the 80s that said GUI is where its at. I should be able to competently navigate my computer using as few buttons as possible and a keyboard for typing.

Jobs obsession with one button is probably a bit much but two for everything worked just fine. If the choice is between one of everything and bunches of combos and two for everything is not available I will go switch to one for everything.

And I vote my wallet.

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 11:34 AM

Its irrelevant how much faster someone used to it can be, its neither as simple nor as intuitive.
Once you're used to it, it really is.

You tell me I "have" to and I say "No I don't, because I don't have to use your product" and act accordingly.

I don't mind keyboard shortcuts but they are not "better" and I'm not going to buy a system that didn't lost the old memo from the 80s that said GUI is where its at. I should be able to competently navigate my computer using as few buttons as possible and a keyboard for typing.
I never said "you have to", I said "you're wasting time by not". And from the point of view of speed and efficiency, keyboard shortcuts are in fact measurably, objectively better.

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 11:51 AM

Once you're used to it, it really is.

If you have to get used to something, it's not intuitive. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of non-intuitive.

Soras Teva Gee

2013-06-03, 12:11 PM

I never said "you have to", I said "you're wasting time by not". And from the point of view of speed and efficiency, keyboard shortcuts are in fact measurably, objectively better.

When put forward as a defense of the OS it becomes a de facto "you have to" as if its accurate that that is the alternative it means you well, have to do it that way.

And telling your consumer what they have to do is confusing the master-servant relationship and bad business practice.

If you have to get used to something, it's not intuitive. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of non-intuitive.

Yeah pretty much this. Intuitive is you can set it down and with no instructions have it worked out in a short order.

Point and click is intuitive, keyboard commands are not.

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 12:17 PM

Fine, I misused the word intuitive. What I was intending to say is that it rapidly becomes second nature.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 01:13 PM

If that is true, then I can say hand on heart there are no competent Windows users where I currently work. I have seen offices where the entire site gets by quite happily without knowing the existence of ANY of the keyboard short-cuts, not even Control-C. Most PC users work on the maxim "Out of sight, out of mind". If they can't see it, it doesn't exist for the task at hand until they bring it into view.

Not to mention that CTRL+D (which I know about, but I am basically the only one among my non-geek friends or family*) isn't quicker than to move the pointer to the Desktop icon on the start screen. At least not for me who is left handed which means I have to let go of the mouse, move my hand to the keyboard and then do the key-pressing.

Keyboard shortcuts really do increase speed. The main reason I use Chrome instead of Firefox is because I always press alt-S instead of clicking the submit post button, and Firefox hijacks alt-S to open the History menu instead. Does that mean you never use ctrl-x, ctrl-c, and ctrl-v as well? Because if you don't, and you ever need to cut, copy, or paste things, you're wasting a lot of time.

I use CTRL+A, C, X, V on a regular basis. Those are basically the only ones I use, because I use them when I actually WORK (aka Excel, word, photo editing, or type posts on this forum or whatever).

*Except my mom, who knows ALL keyboard shortcuts, but she used to work as a secretary and started using word processors before Windows (Word Perfect for DOS).

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 01:22 PM

Not to mention that CTRL+D (which I know about, but I am basically the only one among my non-geek friends or family*)...

It's Winkey-D, not Control-D. And at least for me, the ergonomics of trying to touch those two keys simultaneously is really bad, to the point where it feels like I am contorting my hand to do it. Contrast that with a hand-jerk down and right, followed by a left click. No contest.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 01:37 PM

Don Julio Anejo

2013-06-03, 01:48 PM

Case in point about keyboard shortcuts. This is how I typically browse on my laptop:

- lying down on my back
- laptop is on my chest
- right hand is on the little "nipple" trackpoint mouse
- left hand is almost always supporting my head

Having to use a shortcut like Win-D would actually be extremely inconvenient and a major hassle.

mangosta71

2013-06-03, 02:13 PM

It's Winkey-D, not Control-D. And at least for me, the ergonomics of trying to touch those two keys simultaneously is really bad, to the point where it feels like I am contorting my hand to do it. Contrast that with a hand-jerk down and right, followed by a left click. No contest.
Control + D = duplicate in Excel and other spreadsheet programs.

I know most of the control shortcuts because Windows borrowed them from the old word processors that I used for my first typed assignments - back then there was literally no other way to do things like copy, paste, cut, etc short of deleting/retyping whole blocks of text. I was not aware of the windows + D shortcut because, prior to Windows 8, I never needed it - the OS (since Windows 95, at least) showed my desktop by default.

Alaris

2013-06-03, 02:13 PM

For those having issues with the Start Menu, when I first got Windows 8 a few months ago, the first thing I did, after installing Google Chrome, was to download a Start Menu Replacer. Classic Shell to be precise.

And I've NEVER LOOKED BACK. Start Menu is AWESOME.

http://www.classicshell.net/

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 02:29 PM

Don Julio Anejo

2013-06-03, 02:40 PM

As it happens, I am in the market for a new PC. I am most likely to say screw the os, and transfer my windows 7 key over to the new box.

But is there a strong argument for getting windows 8 and that classicshell app?
That you'll be out $100-130 for the OS with no real benefit and potentially a lot of headache.

mangosta71

2013-06-03, 02:45 PM

Depends. It sounds like 8 runs and boots faster, so if you're building your own PC it may still be beneficial - whether that's worth the price tag is a personal choice. If you buy a pre-assembled PC, nowadays it will almost certainly come with 8 already installed - downloading the shell program is less hassle than installing a different OS and will give you back the GUI you're looking for.

Ashtagon

2013-06-03, 03:00 PM

I literally have an open choice between:

* Windows 7 pre-installed, plus disks and product key (approx £60-80)
* Windows 8 pre-installed, plus disks and product key (same price as above)
* No OS pre-installed (free)

My default choice is no os pre-installed, and use my win7 product key on the new machine.

Gadora

2013-06-03, 04:03 PM

Well duh. Me stupid :smallwink:. And yes, you have to fold your thumb in a weird way in under your hand to do it.

Huh. I alt-tab to the desktop when I need just it (well, shift-alt-tab, to be a bit more accurate), but having just tried Windows-d, pinkie to the Windows key was the natural way for me to hit it. I'm kind of unsure as to why you'd try reaching for it with your thumb, actually. Could just be my laptop keyboard being a little different from the standard desktop keyboard though, I suppose.

Ilena

2013-06-03, 06:19 PM

Ah microsoft, the company that doesn't ask you what you think or want, but tells you and says like it or else. I wish I wasn't such a fan of gaming on windows so much :p

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 06:44 PM

If by omnipresent you mean "comes up once when you boot, and then you click Desktop and never have to look at it again".

To provide just three very important examples, you have to look at it and interface with it again:

Every time you want to open a program.
Every time you want to change a setting.
Every time you want to log off, shut down, or restart.

If you have to get used to something, it's not intuitive. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of non-intuitive.

This. Very much this.

for me, and I would have thought most computer users, my left hand barely ever leaves the keyboard.

My left hand is barely ever near the keyboard unless it needs to be. It would take me far longer to get my left hand to the keyboard, find the right keys (visually), then use them than to simply drag the mouse and click - particularly if it is right in the corner as the Start Menu and Show Desktop buttons are.

Huh. I alt-tab to the desktop when I need just it (well, shift-alt-tab, to be a bit more accurate), but having just tried Windows-d, pinkie to the Windows key was the natural way for me to hit it. I'm kind of unsure as to why you'd try reaching for it with your thumb, actually. Could just be my laptop keyboard being a little different from the standard desktop keyboard though, I suppose.

Which hand are you using and to which Windows key?

[Classic Shell] is AWESOME.
(Quote modified for context.)

Indeed it is.

---

I've just found something else bad with the horrendous interface. Once you open a tile (e.g. SkyDrive by mistake), it's so difficult to close it again.

Flickerdart

2013-06-03, 06:44 PM

Ah microsoft, the company that doesn't ask you what you think or want, but tells you and says like it or else. I wish I wasn't such a fan of gaming on windows so much :p
Yes, Microsoft, the same company that supported Windows XP for over a decade even after Vista sales were floundering, and that will support 7 for just as long, and makes their products available for a huge variety of desktops, laptops, and now tablets, tells you what you want. That's rich.

To provide just three very important examples, you have to look at it and interface with it again:

Every time you want to open a program.
Every time you want to change a setting.
Every time you want to log off, shut down, or restart.

I use my desktop to open programs, the Control Panel to change settings, and the power button to shut down and restart. So no, you're wrong.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 06:51 PM

I use my desktop to open programs, the Control Panel to change settings, and the power button to shut down and restart. So no, you're wrong.

I don't want my hundreds of programs on the desktop, thank you very much. That would be a horrible interface design. I want them collapsed into a nice menu that is only visible when I need it.

And how do you bring up the control panel when there is no icon or menu for it?

How do you log off or switch users with the power button? How do you switch the system off or restart if your buttons aren't readily accessible (on many systems, they aren't)?

thubby

2013-06-03, 07:14 PM

Eh... not necessarily. Sometimes a paradigm shift can be a good thing. If, once people have learnt the new interface, they can be more productive on it than they could on the old, then it's an improvement. (Note that I'm not interested in an argument as to whether this is the case or not with Win8, I'm just making a general point)

It's possible to get locked in a rut with design, and reach a point of diminishing returns. Breaking the trend results in a short period of turmoil as people get used to the new system, and then everything carries on as normal - or, ideally, better. Sometimes it is indeed best to throw everything out and start from scratch. And arguing that it isn't is treading dangerously close to the Sunk Costs Fallacy.

actually it's already a thing. it's called a switching barrier.

microsoft really isn't in the business of making the most effective OS. if they were, windows 8 would just be linux.
they're in the business of making computers as accessible as possible and yes that means dealing with what people already know and are comfortable with.

Don Julio Anejo

2013-06-03, 07:21 PM

Yes, Microsoft, the same company that supported Windows XP for over a decade even after Vista sales were floundering, and that will support 7 for just as long, and makes their products available for a huge variety of desktops, laptops, and now tablets, tells you what you want. That's rich.
The same company that banned any sales of computers with Windows XP after January 1, 2007 and only relented ~year later when absolutely everyone complained about vista. The same company that changed .doc and other office formats to .docx specifically to reduce compatibility and force people to use Office 2007 or later. The same company that forces you to stop using the Start Menu because it's not very convenient on tablets. The same company that STILL forces you to have/use Internet Explorer (for at least some features) and only patched security vulnerabilities that make it a revolving door a few years ago.

I could go on and on. But yes, Microsoft is the one company that forces you to do things their way knowing you have no other choice.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 07:26 PM

The main reason I use Chrome instead of Firefox is because I always press alt-S instead of clicking the submit post button, and Firefox hijacks alt-S to open the History menu instead.

Have you tried Googling for the answer? (http://crasco.blogspot.com.au/2006/10/firefox-2-is-out-and-alt-s-is-broken.html) More info. (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Ui.key.contentAccess)

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 07:54 PM

I've just found something else bad with the horrendous interface. Once you open a tile (e.g. SkyDrive by mistake), it's so difficult to close it again.

Alt-F4. Done.

The same company that changed .doc and other office formats to .docx specifically to reduce compatibility and force people to use Office 2007 or later.

.docx has a lot of improvements over .doc. Apart from anything else (and I'll admit I don't know the nuts and bolts of file formats) it's dramatically smaller. File sizes under .docx are tiny compared to the same file as a .doc.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 07:55 PM

Alt-F4. Done.

And now we're back to keyboard shortcuts? I thought we addressed this already.

---

Additionally, without using keyboard shortcuts, it's much harder to switch between open Metro apps, as well as to see which ones are actually running.

Don Julio Anejo

2013-06-03, 08:07 PM

.docx has a lot of improvements over .doc. Apart from anything else (and I'll admit I don't know the nuts and bolts of file formats) it's dramatically smaller. File sizes under .docx are tiny compared to the same file as a .doc.
Doesn't change the fact that it's not backwards compatible and I can't even open it in Office 2003 without jumping through hoops. A normal, average person might not even know the hoops exist.

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 08:08 PM

They solve the problem though. Alt-F4 is a shortcut that's existed forever. It's not a new thing to learn. I don't see the issue in advocating keyboard shortcuts as a solution when they solve the damn problem. I can't believe that I'm unique in being comfortable with keyboard shortcuts. Even before Win8 I'd use Alt-F4 to close programs as often as not.

There was a point raised upthread about being left-handed, and I'll accept that that does make things more difficult, but that's not a problem with Microsoft, that's a problem with keyboards being designed for the right-handed majority. If you're not left-handed, and you're reasonably computer literate, I do not understand why you would have a problem with keyboard shortcuts.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not backwards compatible and I can't even open it in Office 2003 without jumping through hoops. A normal, average person might not even know the hoops exist.

No, but when have Microsoft - or any major software manufacturer, for that matter - ever been big on supporting old versions? Making big improvements while maintaining backwards compatibility is hard, and generally not worth it from a business point of view. I'm pretty certain OpenOffice can manage .docx files though.

Besides, they did maintain backwards compatibility. The latest versions of Office retained the ability to save as .doc.

Additionally, without using keyboard shortcuts, it's much harder to switch between open Metro apps, as well as to see which ones are actually running.

The Metro apps are truly dire, that I will grant you. Good thing you never ever need to use them, really, isn't it?

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 08:19 PM

They solve the problem though. Alt-F4 is a shortcut that's existed forever. It's not a new thing to learn. I don't see the issue in advocating keyboard shortcuts as a solution when they solve the damn problem. I can't believe that I'm unique in being comfortable with keyboard shortcuts. Even before Win8 I'd use Alt-F4 to close programs as often as not.

There was a point raised upthread about being left-handed, and I'll accept that that does make things more difficult, but that's not a problem with Microsoft, that's a problem with keyboards being designed for the right-handed majority. If you're not left-handed, and you're reasonably computer literate, I do not understand why you would have a problem with keyboard shortcuts.

I can think of the following reasons off the top of my head:

Disability
Left handed (as mentioned)
Missing limb (comes under disability, but this one is much more specific)
Not having your hand near the keyboard (I usually don't, as I already mentioned, as did many other posters - including one that has his hand under his head)
Not being familiar with keyboard shortcuts that are non-intuitive, non-obvious, and not explained
Poor motor skills (arguably disability, but included separately)
Not having a keyboard in as readily accessible a position
Not being comfortable with keyboard shortcuts
Poor memory for things that are non-obvious and non-visual
Using an uncomfortable (e.g. small) keyboard/one with reduced number of buttons

I've worked for an organisation with thousands of computer users. I'd estimate that roughly 98% never used keyboard shortcuts and when we told them what they were, they would forget them. Of the remaining 2%, most of those had written the few they did use on a piece of paper and stuck them to the monitor.

Heliomance

2013-06-03, 08:29 PM

All your disability ones come under the separate issue of how accessible the software is, which is a completely different design challenge, and one that I know nothing about so I don't feel qualified to argue either way. Regarding poor motor skills though, I don't quite see how they could be poor enough to be unable to manage keyboard shortcuts while simultaneously being good enough to cope with a mouse. As for most of the rest of your points, I feel this is relevant. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=573)

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-03, 08:42 PM

Huh. I alt-tab to the desktop when I need just it (well, shift-alt-tab, to be a bit more accurate), but having just tried Windows-d, pinkie to the Windows key was the natural way for me to hit it. I'm kind of unsure as to why you'd try reaching for it with your thumb, actually. Could just be my laptop keyboard being a little different from the standard desktop keyboard though, I suppose.

Well for me, with hand size, keyboard size and key distances (from each other) the only way a pinkie position is more comfortable is (testing right now) if I have the pinkie on the windows key and the middle ring finger on D. This is not a natural selection of fingers, at least for me.

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 08:52 PM

You're not going to receive any arguments from me that keyboard shortcuts *can* be quicker, in optimal situations. You're not going to receive any argument from me that people who have the capability (memory, time, and physical capability) should learn the shortcuts.

But, keyboard shortcuts should be just that, a shortcut. Keyboard shortcuts should in no way be a requirement to use the computer effectively.

There are many people who can't use the keyboard shortcuts, or where using them is inefficient or impractical, for many reasons, including those listed above.

---

Also, accessibility is most definitely not a different issue, it is core. Accessibility is a core issue, for those with a disability and for those without. This is what an operating system does, it exists to make things accessible.

---

Nope, that is not relevant. IT does not exist to ensure the computers are working. IT exists to ensure that the business is running. This is a very important difference.

Besides, if you implemented that policy, I would be sacked (firing myself would probably cause self-esteem issues, though). Heck, the head of the IT department at that large company would be sacked. Even we IT people forget our passwords.

Zweisteine

2013-06-03, 11:11 PM

From what a friend showed me, one of the main problems with Windows 8 seemed to be that it lacked any... Y'know... Windows...

Gadora

2013-06-03, 11:18 PM

Well for me, with hand size, keyboard size and key distances (from each other) the only way a pinkie position is more comfortable is (testing right now) if I have the pinkie on the windows key and the middle ring finger on D. This is not a natural selection of fingers, at least for me.

Huh. That was precisely the fingering that I naturally used. *shrugs*

Rawhide

2013-06-03, 11:31 PM

There's a reason that full size keyboards have two ctrl, alt, and Windows keys. It's because you're supposed to use those combos two handed. If the key is on the left, you should use the modifier on the right with the other hand.

Ashtagon

2013-06-04, 12:04 AM

The only way I could use that Winkey+D short-cut with my pinky on the windows key would be if the keyboard were so far to the left of my desk that I could not use it to actually do any typing. Even then, I'd need to use my ring finger for the D, which results in an unnatural finger selection. If I ever actually HAD to use that key combo, it would be more natural to use my right hand. At which point, it's not really saving time compared to the current mouse hotspot on the bottom right of the screen.

Aedilred

2013-06-04, 01:22 AM

Huh. That was precisely the fingering that I naturally used. *shrugs*
People have... different preferences? *gasp*

But seriously, assuming you're typing in a conventional way (and your hand is even on the keyboard to begin with), then your little finger is normally somewhere in the vicinity of the A key, with your thumb near the space bar. For me at least, to reach the Windows key from there with my little finger requires me to contort my wrist at an uncomfortable angle. It's quicker and easier to use my thumb, but neither solution is particularly optimal.

shadow_archmagi

2013-06-04, 01:56 AM

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 02:12 AM

It's ugly, re-arranges things unintuitively for the sole benefit of the tablet crowd, and vastly reduces the utility of the mouse, my preferred weapon.

Keyboard shortcuts are only a solution if you already know a bunch of keyboard shortcuts. Otherwise it's an irritating, unneeded learning process.

I disagree with Ugly; I actually prefer my UI's as simple as possible; I have always loathed KDE for example, always used GNOME if running linux.

The rest I agree with.

factotum

2013-06-04, 02:24 AM

There's a reason that full size keyboards have two ctrl, alt, and Windows keys.

This has never been the case for a UK keyboard, though--the right ALT is replaced with an ALT GR key which basically provides a grand total of 2 extra symbols (¦ and €) but doesn't work like the other ALT key does. In addition, the full-sized keyboard I'm typing this on (Cherry, so not a crappy no-name brand) has only the left Windows key--probably because nobody ever uses Windows key shortcuts! (Don't even get me started on that pointless contextual menu key they put on modern keyboards--has anybody, in the entire history of anything ever, actually used that thing?).

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 02:48 AM

The Swedish keyboards tend to have two CTRL and two Win keys, but one ALT (left) and one ALT-GR (right). At least we need that for all the symbols moved around by our three extra letters. The ALT-GR in combination with other keys give the @£$[]}\€|~ symbols.

Rawhide

2013-06-04, 03:04 AM

This has never been the case for a UK keyboard, though--the right ALT is replaced with an ALT GR key which basically provides a grand total of 2 extra symbols (¦ and €) but doesn't work like the other ALT key does. In addition, the full-sized keyboard I'm typing this on (Cherry, so not a crappy no-name brand) has only the left Windows key--probably because nobody ever uses Windows key shortcuts! (Don't even get me started on that pointless contextual menu key they put on modern keyboards--has anybody, in the entire history of anything ever, actually used that thing?).

Alt-Gr was created because there weren't enough modifier keys physically on the keyboard. The original, US layout, doesn't have Alt-Gr and some international layouts just renamed one of the keys for the additional functions while using the same physical keyboard.

If it's missing one of the keys, then it's not a "full" keyboard in the sense that I was using it. Doesn't matter if it's no name brand or if it's gold plated.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 03:06 AM

If it's missing one of the keys, then it's not a "full" keyboard in the sense that I was using it. Doesn't matter if it's no name brand or if it's gold plated.

Oh yeah!? Well you don't have ÅÄÖ so I win! :smallbiggrin:

Rawhide

2013-06-04, 03:12 AM

Oh yeah!? Well you don't have ÅÄÖ so I win! :smallbiggrin:

*switches to US International layout*

Yes I do! :smalltongue:

(Actually, right now I'm on a Mac, which can do that anyway. :smalltongue:)

Ashtagon

2013-06-04, 03:14 AM

Well you can't type ċġħż!

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 03:25 AM

*switches to US International layout*

Yes I do! :smalltongue:

(Actually, right now I'm on a Mac, which can do that anyway. :smalltongue:)

Well I can switch freely between whatever layouts I install in Windows*, it's just that the symbols on the keys doesn't change. But anyway. :smallwink:

*Since I bought my laptop on Best Buy, I have to switch key layout to write Swedish. For some reason when I installed W8 (upgraded from an American W7 with default US keyboard and Swedish keybaord as secondary choice) it decided as by default US keyboard, British Keyboard (!?) and Swedish keyboard should be installed. I have been meaning to uninstall the British keyboard but I never get around to it, since it's not really in the way.

AMX

2013-06-04, 03:47 AM

Don't even get me started on that pointless contextual menu key they put on modern keyboards--has anybody, in the entire history of anything ever, actually used that thing?

*raises hand*
Yes.

Heliomance

2013-06-04, 03:51 AM

(Don't even get me started on that pointless contextual menu key they put on modern keyboards--has anybody, in the entire history of anything ever, actually used that thing?).

I have once or twice, but only when my mouse hasn't been working for whatever reason. Mouseless computer operation is and should be possible. It's just really painful >_>

And really, Rawhide? You'd forget your password over the course of five minutes?

Rawhide

2013-06-04, 03:55 AM

And really, Rawhide? You'd forget your password over the course of five minutes?

If I'm forced to make pointless complex passwords that are exceptionally hard to remember for no reason? Sure. Done it before.

Heliomance

2013-06-04, 04:04 AM

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 04:13 AM

Eight characters, one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one number is kinda standard these days. I'm aware that there are better ways to do passwords, but that's what the vast majority of places run with. I'd have thought you'd be used to it.

The more complicated also has one or more of the following rules:

Cannot start with a number.
Cannot end with a number.
Cannot start with an upper case character.

That's when it gets really annoying after a while.

Ashtagon

2013-06-04, 04:14 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/931336_567530629957795_174669479_n.jpg

And of course, XKCD...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_strength.png

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 04:18 AM

And of course, XKCD...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_strength.png

I will put that on facebook I think. It is very very true.

There is also the difference between theory and practice; security experts tend to first list all the ways a "good" password (as in the first example) should be created, but then explain why you should not force your personel to use such passwords: Because when the password gets too complicated, the user writes it down. If you are lucky he or she writes it down on the notepad function on his smartphone. More likely he will write it on a post-it under his keyboard. And if you are unlucky he will write it on a post-it attached to the edge of the screen...

Salbazier

2013-06-04, 06:04 AM

I disagree with Ugly; I actually prefer my UI's as simple as possible; I have always loathed KDE for example, always used GNOME if running linux.

The rest I agree with.

I prefer KDE, for the simple reason my first experience Linux was with that so I'm used to it. Simple and minimal look... I don't know. I can agree they are beautiful but it just don't work for me (this apply to other stuffs beside OS/desktop too). Maybe because I'm a naturally cluttered person. My room and desk look like a shipwreck. My mind too.

(Don't even get me started on that pointless contextual menu key they put on modern keyboards--has anybody, in the entire history of anything ever, actually used that thing?).

Umm, me? Usually with my laptop, though. Alternating with the left button on my touchpad.

Eight characters, one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one number is kinda standard these days. I'm aware that there are better ways to do passwords, but that's what the vast majority of places run with. I'd have thought you'd be used to it.

Personally, I think case-sensitivity is rather annoying. I prefer to use all these weird symbols readily available on the keyboard. Especially since I more prone to mistype uppercase/lowercase than symbol/letter.:smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 06:39 AM

I prefer KDE, for the simple reason my first experience Linux was with that so I'm used to it. Simple and minimal look... I don't know. I can agree they are beautiful but it just don't work for me (this apply to other stuffs beside OS/desktop too). Maybe because I'm a naturally cluttered person. My room and desk look like a shipwreck. My mind too.

---

Personally, I think case-sensitivity is rather annoying. I prefer to use all these weird symbols readily available on the keyboard. Especially since I more prone to mistype uppercase/lowercase than symbol/letter.:smalltongue:

The thing is I don't go for Simple as much as Clean, design-wise. IOS, W8 and Gnome are all examples of OS I find nice to work with, because they are very clear, easy to read, simple in shape and no clutter, but they are still smooth, modern and have things like shadows under menus etc.

I am the same when it comes to other stuff too; I much prefer Dieselpunk to Steampunk (though I love Steampunk as well) because I am a sucker for the designs and architecture between say 1910 and 1950. (When it comes to cottages I can go as far back as 18th century, but that is a different matter, I am talking city and modern living here).

Speaking of CaSE SensitiVity - Two things have always bugged me:

1. Why do so many applications insist on case-sensitive searches? It is an abomination that should be killed with fire!

2. Why ISN'T the USERNAME case sensitive in Windows? Shouldn't that improve security as well?

factotum

2013-06-04, 08:36 AM

The thing is I don't go for Simple as much as Clean, design-wise. IOS, W8 and Gnome are all examples of OS I find nice to work with, because they are very clear, easy to read, simple in shape and no clutter, but they are still smooth, modern and have things like shadows under menus etc.

Which variant of Gnome, though? The problem is that there are so many different desktops for the thing! (Something like six at the last count, if you include Ubuntu Unity and Mint Cinnamon).

Finlam

2013-06-04, 08:36 AM

2. Why ISN'T the USERNAME case sensitive in Windows? Shouldn't that improve security as well?

It's Windows. Just be glad the password is case sensitive.

/toungeincheek

thubby

2013-06-04, 08:58 AM

Speaking of CaSE SensitiVity - Two things have always bugged me:

1. Why do so many applications insist on case-sensitive searches? It is an abomination that should be killed with fire!

2. Why ISN'T the USERNAME case sensitive in Windows? Shouldn't that improve security as well?

1) /agree
2) usernames are publicly visible, there's not much point in protecting them.

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-04, 09:05 AM

2) usernames are publicly visible, there's not much point in protecting them.

At least it couldn't hurt.

Oh and @Factorum:
It was a few years since I used it, but I am talking "vanilla" Gnome, aka not Unity or Mint.

Sean Mirrsen

2013-06-04, 10:04 AM

I'll withhold my opinions on Windows 8 until I've actually had a chance to meaningfully explore it (although let me voice a general agreement with the people who think that basing a PC OS off a tablet interface is a ridiculous idea), as I have the tendency not to form a strong opinion on something I don't have a strong idea of (as was the case with, for instance, the latest MLP).

This, however, I find to be a good example of Microsoft's "change".
.docx has a lot of improvements over .doc. Apart from anything else (and I'll admit I don't know the nuts and bolts of file formats) it's dramatically smaller. File sizes under .docx are tiny compared to the same file as a .doc.That's because DOCX files are arrays of XML files housed in renamed ZIPs. The same DOC put in a ZIP would be half the size of the DOCX. The same file in ODT would still be smaller than the DOCX. This is with ODT also being a mess of XML and other data files in a renamed ZIP.

So in essence, Microsoft picked up the same zipped-XML data structure that Sun developed - or requisitioned, at least - for OpenOffice (ODT appeared in 2005, DOCX in 2006), and repurposed it to their own product. Oh, and they only started supporting ODT in their Office in 2008.

Rawhide

2013-06-04, 10:22 AM

(although let me voice a general agreement with the people who think that basing a PC OS off a tablet interface is a ridiculous idea)

I don't think anyone here has said anything about any ideas of what the interface is based on being a ridiculous idea. I know that I, for one, have said that the interface seems good for touchscreen tablets, but it's a horrible interface for regular PCs due to actually having used it on one. What's ridiculous is that they decided that everyone should be forced to use the interface, regardless of what type of system they are using, and not be allowed to choose between the best interface that is applicable to their PC and usage habits.

Though I think I just realised why. Money. They want to sell Metro apps from a central app store the way Apple does, and they are trying to force an environment change to compel it.

shadow_archmagi

2013-06-04, 10:28 AM

I disagree with Ugly; I actually prefer my UI's as simple as possible; I have always loathed KDE for example, always used GNOME if running linux.

The rest I agree with.

I'd be okay with a spartan design, but the giant colored squares thing Windows has going is just garish.

factotum

2013-06-04, 10:40 AM

It's Windows. Just be glad the password is case sensitive.

/toungeincheek

You may joke, but once upon a time Windows passwords *weren't* case sensitive--look up the LAN Manager password system at some point. (The fact they were also effectively limited to two 7-character chunks didn't help either).

pendell

2013-06-04, 11:19 AM

WRT keyboard shortcuts, I remember the pre-windows days. I remember writing my term papers in wordperfect and word start. Open block was control K-b. Close block was control K-k. Copy was Control k-C. And so on. To save in wordperfect was the F8 key. Back in those days it was common for games to come with keyboard overlays so you could remember what every single key did.

IT was not more "efficient". It was hell. There is a reason Microsoft Word blew Wordperfect out of the water, and that is because the WIMP is so much more intuitive than keyboards or keyboard shortcuts. If Win8 is forcing keyboard shortcuts on us, that is a step backwards.

Sure we can memorize a bunch of shortcuts to get our jobs done. The question is: Why should we memorize essentially useless information if we don't have to? I'd rather spend my time learning something useful than having to memorize a bunch of UI tricks which will no doubt be obsolete as soon as the next version of the system comes out.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2013-06-04, 12:23 PM

Because Win+D has been the shortcut to show the desktop since I can remember. It's one of the shortcuts that every competent Windows user should know, along with alt-tab and ctrl-alt-del.

...

...

In point of fact, I have used every version of windows since 3.1 , have written software for most of them, and make my living from computers. And I was not aware of this.

...

Here is a bit of free advice for anyone considering a career which requires dealing with non-computer people I.E. any job with a paygrade above programmer/analyst 1: Banish the phrase "Any competent user should ... " from your vocabulary. It's sort of the UI version of Godwin's law: If you say it, you automatically lose the argument.

In my shop we make software to be used by minimum wage immigrants for whom English is a second language when refilling bars in hotels. This means big icons. This means obvious buttons with obvious functions. This means no use of the keyboard or any kind of mandatory "shortcut" if it can possibly be avoided.

The competence of the user is not in question. *I* am trying to sell to *them*, not they to *me*. So if my software is too complicated for the target audience, the onus is on ME to fix it, not on THEM to become more intelligent. I don't want to write software that only graduate students can use ; I'll be happy to take money from stupid people any day of the week :).

So if you're writing for the general mass market, it has to be written in such a way that you can drop an average-intelligence ten-year-old in front of it and expect him/her to make sense of it without the need for a manual. Then they can explain it to mom and dad. If "keyboard shortcut" is not something your audience intuitively grasps, the burden is on you to provide a tutorial or something to educate them. The phrase "any competent user should..." is codespeak in the industry I work in for "my interface is counterintuitive and I'm not interested in fixing it."

You can get away with that if you're Microsoft. Not if you're a hundred man company with many competitors.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Emmerask

2013-06-04, 01:24 PM

Hm we should have thread about shortcuts, win+d I did actually know, its quite useful if you have tons of windows open and want to start a new one with icon click on the desktop ^^

Bouregard

2013-06-05, 05:13 AM

My main point was more that it seems like it could be easily fixed, in the very least by just re-installign windows 7 if all else fails.
Also the only difference I noticed, other than the log-in screen being replaced by just a mouse click, were squared edges on everything(like windows 6) and the lack of a start button oddly(which I'm somewhat surprised no-one has bothered a hack a patch for).

I use Classic Shell for Windows 8, it adds to start button back and disables the ugly app overlay. I'm quite happy with it.

However Win8 seems to crash more often then Win7 when you use older software. Also every instance of the word "program" is replaced with "app". I really hate that.

Hm we should have thread about shortcuts, win+d I did actually know, its quite useful if you have tons of windows open and want to start a new one with icon click on the desktop ^^

Ctrl+Shift+Del in any browser allows you to quickly delete cache&cookies. Very useful if you have to tell a 90 year old customer to do exactly that by phone if they are unable to say which browser they use or what a browser is.

Ctrl+A mark anything in the current field; highly useful in combination with del, ctrl+c and ctrl+v

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-05, 06:15 AM

Regarding the crashing; as I said it seems to be a little weird about that. A few people seem to have a lot of problems, and most have none at all (meaning it is even more stable than 7). I am in the latter group.

I wonder if it is primarely a hardware or a software issue (aka drivers or that a few very specific programs just doesn't work).

As for shortcuts:

Those are basically the only ones I use:

CTRL+A - Mark all
CTRL+C - Copy
CTRL+X - Cut
CTRL+V - Paste

Aedilred

2013-06-05, 10:09 AM

As for shortcuts:

Those are basically the only ones I use:

CTRL+A - Mark all
CTRL+C - Copy
CTRL+X - Cut
CTRL+V - Paste
Not Alt-Tab? CTRL+F? CTRL+S?

Avilan the Grey

2013-06-05, 01:50 PM

Not Alt-Tab? CTRL+F? CTRL+S?

Well yes, ALT-TAB, but I usually only use that when gaming and need to google a hint or something. Otherwise I tend to use the mouse and the task bar.

CTRL+F I actually don't know what that does. Nor CTRL+S (until told here).

In office products I use the text ones, CTRL+B/I/U

Sean Mirrsen

2013-06-05, 08:20 PM

I frequently use keyboard shortcuts - when working. Or playing. I can't imagine using Lightwave without the ability to quickly cycle tools and functions with the keyboard. Using MyPaint would be much more clunky if it didn't have well-arranged shortcuts for everything from resizing the brush to rotating the canvas. In many a game keyboard commands are indispensable.

There is, however, a difference when using the operating system itself. The OS must be usable and navigable without any keyboard shortcuts whatsoever, just as it should be usable and navigable without any mouse input. The point of the OS is accessibility. I am frequently finding myself operating my laptop from afar with a wireless mouse - browsing the net, watching movies, performing some file operations, manipulating some images, playing a game or two - I can do this all with just a mouse in Win7.

On a PC, as opposed to a tablet, the OS is not a full-focus application. It's something that exists in the background. You don't have to grab your PC with both hands to efficiently manipulate it - and you shouldn't have to.