The Windows 8 (especially post-8.1) pushback baffles me. If you put any effort at all into learning how to use it effectively, the acclimation period is definitely shorter than Win95 or WinXP was. I use it on a desktop machine with two 30" displays and only mouse/keyboard inputs (i.e. no touch). You certainly couldn't pay me $150 to go back to Win7 at this point.
I even find that I use Metro apps on my desktop fairly often. I have the live tiles for a few key apps like Mail, Calendar, Weather, Google Voice, and Twitter arranged as a dashboard of key notifications that I care about and flip over from the desktop more often than I thought I would.
It's also nice how Metro apps can raise notification toast on the desktop now in 8.1 (and desktop apps like Outlook can also tie into that same system, similar to Growl but built-in). Since I'm on the desktop 95% of the time, that definitely helps bridge the gap between Metro and desktop. I can get a lightweight notification when I get an @mention on Twitter, for example, without leaving TweetDeck running all the time.
On my laptop with touch and on my Surface, Win8.1 is far and away better than Win7 could have possibly been. The Metro side of things is great there - especially since both have HiDPI displays and Metro apps .
Surprisingly, I still haven't installed Outlook on the laptop because the 8.1 update to the Metro Mail app makes it good enough for my relatively light email use while mobile. Since all of the settings sync across machines automatically, the Mail app was already configured with the six accounts I use regularly as soon as I logged into it, so it was a no-brainer compared to installing Outlook or opening six web apps all the time.
I'm a developer, so I'm no stranger to tasks outside of Metroland.
I don't have any trouble using my desktop or laptop to get things done. Win8.1 is essentially just a better, faster Win7 when I'm focused on using desktop applications.
Maybe you could clarify what you meant in the comment I replied to then.
It seemed like you were saying that a laptop with Windows 8 somehow precludes "some people from doing something productive" just because the Metro interface is there in the background.
I'm saying that hasn't been my experience whatsoever, using a Windows 8 laptop for development work.
I'm not sure I understand. I told you that I personally do productive things in Metro, but you're telling me I'm wrong. I told you that I personally do even more productive things by focusing on the desktop when Metro isn't enough, but that apparently doesn't count. What else can we talk about at this point? I don't really understand what your purpose was when you replied to my original comment?
> I told you that I personally do productive things in Metro
Sorry did you say this? Maybe I misread your comment but I think you said:
> I'm no stranger to tasks OUTSIDE of Metroland.
and:
> I don't have any trouble using my desktop or laptop to get things done.
Nothing I see here means "I'm productive with Metro", it means "I can avoid Metro and still be productive". Not sure if that was what you intended to say but that's how I read it.
I don't know this for a fact, but I think very few people were coming from Win2k to XP. Win2k was relatively niche, even in business, from what I can remember of my experience back then. It was essentially only the people who were running NT 4.0 Workstation before who used Win2k in the interim between that and XP.
The issue with Windows 8 isn't that it's unusable, obviously it can be used. The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for most people using traditional systems.
Changing the way a UI functions has a cost to the user, and users expect that if they are willing to pay that cost they gain something in return. Once a user acclimates to it, perhaps Windows 8 is equally as usable as Windows 7 was, but given its relatively poor uptake I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience better.
Ultimately, paying the "learn a new interface" cost for what is effectively side-grade is a poor value.
In contrast, for users of touchscreen-based Windows devices, this is a cost that is likely worth paying, since the features enhance usability for their hardware. But such devices represent a minority of Windows based PCs on the market.
> The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for people using traditional systems.
I think that's not entirely true. The Metro design language isn't really about monotasking and wasn't really about mobile, and I think the idea of adopting as a unified cross-platform experience -- though its a pretty big break from the traditional windowing interface -- had some very good reasons and makes sense even on the desktop. The overlapping windows of the traditional desktop approach are, IMO, a pretty bad UI thing that we've all gotten used to, but something like Metro could do better...
The particular way the implementation worked out in Win 8 originally -- and this has been mitigated somewhat in Win 8.1 -- is still way too mobile focussed, and the sharp break with traditional desktop apps in seperate environments was a horrible UX choice. But I think the problem there was trying as much about pushing vendors to produce Windows Store apps and support WinRT (and, supporting Microsoft's getting yet another cut of the application money, on top of what they get selling the essential dev tools for the platform), as optimizing the UI for mobile.
I suspect that something like Metro really is the interface of the future -- even on desktop-like systems -- but it may take someone other than Microsoft to first implement it right.
> but I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience objectively better.
Well, yes, it would be difficult to argue that, starting with that what users find to be better is by definition subjective, not objective, so to argue that would be self-contradictory from the gate.
I even find that I use Metro apps on my desktop fairly often. I have the live tiles for a few key apps like Mail, Calendar, Weather, Google Voice, and Twitter arranged as a dashboard of key notifications that I care about and flip over from the desktop more often than I thought I would.
It's also nice how Metro apps can raise notification toast on the desktop now in 8.1 (and desktop apps like Outlook can also tie into that same system, similar to Growl but built-in). Since I'm on the desktop 95% of the time, that definitely helps bridge the gap between Metro and desktop. I can get a lightweight notification when I get an @mention on Twitter, for example, without leaving TweetDeck running all the time.
On my laptop with touch and on my Surface, Win8.1 is far and away better than Win7 could have possibly been. The Metro side of things is great there - especially since both have HiDPI displays and Metro apps .
Surprisingly, I still haven't installed Outlook on the laptop because the 8.1 update to the Metro Mail app makes it good enough for my relatively light email use while mobile. Since all of the settings sync across machines automatically, the Mail app was already configured with the six accounts I use regularly as soon as I logged into it, so it was a no-brainer compared to installing Outlook or opening six web apps all the time.