haha, precisely. Windows 8 := Windows for Kids. Or rather, Windows for "Kids Only." Well, maybe not, but still...
I do prefer simplicity in desktop environments, but not the iOS-type--I like simplicity as long as it does not hinder functionality or flexibility.
Someone when posting about Gnome 2 support on Arch Linux, summed up my opinion on PC UIs quite well: "All I want is the simple, minimal interface that I had with G2 [Gnome 2], with the cute little foot in the top left corner, my customised menus and the basic window effects; that's it. I don't want Duplo-sized icons, I don't want fancy effects and I don't want the 0.0001 seconds of speed difference or extra security and reliability, because I'd rather my PC burst into flames from some G2 bug than I ever use G3 to do my computing."
Well I'm not that much of an extremist, but his criticism of G3 I'm right on with. Duplo-sized icons, mainly. Tablets? Sure. Desktops? Just no.
Frankly, I don't mind. GUI's are changing and evolving. You can either stick with your old computers, OS's, and GUI's or move on to the modern stuff.
I choose to move on to the modern stuff. I was against it at first, but once I gave it a chance, I realized that it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was.
I don't like everything about modern GUI's, but there's not enough I don't like to prevent me from using them.
you can turn it off by doing some registry edit. i had windows 8 installed on my one computer and look up online and there all ready few how too on doing a registry edit. Then it starts up like windows 7. I think it was pretty cool aol did it first back in 1996. I know there little different in them.
I used to hardcore hate newer UIs... I kept XP in classic mode, I kept Vista in classic mode... (Then again using Vista was a problem in and of itself).
I eventually caved and started leaving their default interfaces on, then 7 came out and I thought pinning things and jump lists were mindblowingly useful.
Now making computer images is a part of my job, like it or not I'll have to make a Windows 8 image eventually, probably this time next year at the latest.
I've been staying rather neutral with 8 so far, I don't find Metro overly appealing to typical keyboard/mouse scenarios; but if you are spending exorbitant amounts of time staring at it then you aren't using your computer to do what its meat for, running applications.
x86 based tablets running windows 8 certainly seems like they would be fun toys, Windows on ARM sounds like a stopgap measure to try to steal some tablet market share here and now, then convert people back over to x86.
Please excuse me if this reads as senseless ramblings, I'm only half thinking right now.
I used to hardcore hate newer UIs... I kept XP in classic mode, I kept Vista in classic mode... (Then again using Vista was a problem in and of itself).
I eventually caved and started leaving their default interfaces on, then 7 came out and I thought pinning things and jump lists were mindblowingly useful.
I was exactly the same way. Although I kind of just skipped over Vista. When I first installed 7 on my desktop, I tried to make it as classic as possible. I realized that was a mistake. I was missing out on some cool things like pinning.
I still have classic explorer installed, but mostly because A) not having the shared folder icon overlay pisses me off and the new overwrite file dialog box is annoying. Plus it does other useful things like automatically expanding the more details pane on the file copy dialog.
At one point I used the classic start menu on 7, but that didn't last long as I quickly grew to prefer the new start menu
I used it and loved everything except Metro. It runs a LOT faster than the standard Windows 7 install, even on the same exact hardware. I even got better FPS in all of my games. Faster file access too.
Maybe I can just find a way to move the old explorer and start menu from 7 into it.. XD
First of all, there's no options to configure in setup (apart from where to install to). There haven't been since Vista came out. I don't see them changing that any time soon. You configure stuff like that post-install in Programs and Features -> Turn Windows features on or off. So maybe there could be an option there, but not likely.
They're really pushing this metro thing. If they provide any option to disable it, it will probably be either a registry hack or group policy setting.
But I wouldn't hold out much hope for having any officially supported way to disable metro beyond changing your shell.
Classic Shell still works on the latest preview. Unsure if MS will circumvent that tho at some point before RTM. Here's an interesting if rather long winded thread over at MSFN that discusses metro and classic:
Hope there will be a registry hack or something. Microsoft should think about stuff like that. Not everyone going to like the metro. So after installing it there should be a box you can unchecked metro. But there ain't going to be one since they are pushing it.
The unwashed masses have never met a version of Windows they liked. That is, until the next version comes out. Then the previous version becomes the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The opinion on Windows XP was that is was horrendously ugly, but much better than ME and 98. Everyone who knew anything about computers at all would turn the classic theme on, remember?
It also didn't help it that it was the successor to Windows 2000, which is still my favourite Windows version.
That said, 8 is going to fail, 9 is going to be amazing. It's going to be like Vista and 7 all over again.
Even with the classic theme on XP was hated by the wannabe kids on here (those who preached hatred of windows, yet continued to still use it because of their incomptetance).
Even with the classic theme on XP was hated by the wannabe kids on here (those who preached hatred of windows, yet continued to still use it because of their incomptetance).
I remember those days. I used to be one of those kids. But I grew up. I actually like Windows 8.
Even with the classic theme on XP was hated by the wannabe kids on here (those who preached hatred of windows, yet continued to still use it because of their incomptetance).
I have to admit to being one of those kids, but I also have to admit that I had a 400MHz Pentium 2.
And that I used Windows 2000 most of the time.
That said I still like 2000 better because it doesn't feel dumped down like XP.. similarly to how I like 7 better than 8 for the same reason.
I like windows 2000 to. I remember when my friend got a computer with windows 2000 on it and after windows xp came out. He wanted to upgrade to xp. I just told him the windows xp was a fancy version of 2000. With few perks with it. I got windows vista right after it came out and upgraded from xp to vista. My computer slowed right down after upgrading. So after a week with vista running on my computer i just reinstalled windows xp back on it. I do like widows 7 too. I wish i could find windows xp 64bit version. Well someday.
Ever since Vista I've just about entirely lost all trust in Microsoft. They know they can pretty much do whatever, and everyone will upgrade sooner or later, because every single OEM computer manufacturer is lobbied to include the latest version of Windows.
That's why people who can afford to often use Macs; I feel like the majority of idiot computer users, that are also PC owners, simply *don't* maintain their PCs, even if the OS isn't that crappy. They don't care at all, they just allow them to accumulate problems and malware until they're considered "obsolete," at which point they dish out their money for a new PC running a *new* and "improved" version of Windows.
I'm not an Apple lover, either, but Microsoft just really pisses me off. They absolutely suck at design. They absolutely suck at marketing. They assume everyone loves a "simpler" PC, when it's actually just a slightly more retarded one with more limited functionality.
and to append some stuff; Microsoft has always been a bitch of a company, but their products used to be good, back when they were strictly functional, i.e. Win9x or WinNT. They didn't try at all with the design (which was FINE, compared to when they absolutely fail at copying Apple, with their shiny translucent glass effects), it was all focused and to some extent minimalist. Microsoft doesn't, of course, believe in minimalism, but when they do it accidentally, it works. Win2k was a nice OS. WinXP was in many ways worse, less secure, less efficient, and less focused. It was basically NT4.5 sponsored by Teletubbies, with a more welcoming and less secure login screen...
Ever since Vista I've just about entirely lost all trust in Microsoft. They know they can pretty much do whatever, and everyone will upgrade sooner or later, because every single OEM computer manufacturer is lobbied to include the latest version of Windows.
That's why people who can afford to often use Macs; I feel like the majority of idiot computer users, that are also PC owners, simply *don't* maintain their PCs, even if the OS isn't that crappy. They don't care at all, they just allow them to accumulate problems and malware until they're considered "obsolete," at which point they dish out their money for a new PC running a *new* and "improved" version of Windows.
I'm not an Apple lover, either, but Microsoft just really pisses me off. They absolutely suck at design. They absolutely suck at marketing. They assume everyone loves a "simpler" PC, when it's actually just a slightly more retarded one with more limited functionality.
and to append some stuff; Microsoft has always been a bitch of a company, but their products used to be good, back when they were strictly functional, i.e. Win9x or WinNT. They didn't try at all with the design (which was FINE, compared to when they absolutely fail at copying Apple, with their shiny translucent glass effects), it was all focused and to some extent minimalist. Microsoft doesn't, of course, believe in minimalism, but when they do it accidentally, it works. Win2k was a nice OS. WinXP was in many ways worse, less secure, less efficient, and less focused. It was basically NT4.5 sponsored by Teletubbies, with a more welcoming and less secure login screen...
2000 and XP were fairly on-par security wise when they were the mainstream. I don't see how the welcome screen was at all less secure than the old box. Nor do I see how they copied Apple with Aero Glass; Apple's never really introduced any glassy elements to Aqua.
and to append some stuff; Microsoft has always been a bitch of a company, but their products used to be good, back when they were strictly functional, i.e. Win9x or WinNT. They didn't try at all with the design (which was FINE, compared to when they absolutely fail at copying Apple, with their shiny translucent glass effects), it was all focused and to some extent minimalist. Microsoft doesn't, of course, believe in minimalism, but when they do it accidentally, it works. Win2k was a nice OS. WinXP was in many ways worse, less secure, less efficient, and less focused. It was basically NT4.5 sponsored by Teletubbies, with a more welcoming and less secure login screen...
Wow.
First of all, like stitch said, 2000 and XP were pretty much the same security wise. XP's flaws got more fame because more people used it.
Take 2000, toss in a couple of elements from ME with a fisher price UI and you've got XP. The core of the OS was the same and just as stable and reliable as 2000. XP was actually better in more than a few ways. Particularly with gaming, and with the later service packs, security.
That's why people who can afford to often use Macs; I feel like the majority of idiot computer users, that are also PC owners, simply *don't* maintain their PCs, even if the OS isn't that crappy. They don't care at all, they just allow them to accumulate problems and malware until they're considered "obsolete," at which point they dish out their money for a new PC running a *new* and "improved" version of Windows.
I'm not an Apple lover, either, but Microsoft just really pisses me off. They absolutely suck at design. They absolutely suck at marketing. They assume everyone loves a "simpler" PC, when it's actually just a slightly more retarded one with more limited functionality.
The problem with your thinking here is that you're approaching this from a geek perspective. The truth is, the average joe (the majority of MS's user base) doesn't want to care about PC maintenance (hell, *I* don't want to care about it). They *do* want a simpler PC. They just want to surf the web, play games, etc. They don't want to know or think about how this mystical, magical computer works.
You've seen those Windows 7 commercials, right? That's not far from the truth, people's feedback for MS is "make it easier to use" well, how? What's particularly difficult? Not easy to figure out. So they approach the problem scientifically by studying eye movements, brain activity, etc. The problem with this is that UI design is not science. It's art. That's something that Apple understands which is why their UI gets praise from the masses while MS's doesn't.
And what all them realize is that the underlying complexity of the OS should be hidden from the end user. Power users know how to get what they want. So the default configurations are kept simplistic to appeal to a wider audience. Apple hides all of the complexity of UNIX from the end user, Microsoft hides the complexity of NT, Ubuntu tries to hide the complexity of Linux.
They all do it, no one is making a geek OS that's complex out of the box. Not anymore. Back in the days when only geeks used computers, it made sense to please them. These days, geeks are the minority, not the majority and the evolution of OS's reflect that. I suggest you make peace with that fact and stop resisting.
stitch: nah you're right the improvements in XP over 2K didn't lessen its security, I suppose XP was actually a legitimately improved OS.
BlueSun: you're right, it's all leaning towards making everything less exposed, which for the vast majority makes a great deal of sense... I guess it's just sort of annoying where devices are being made that have mostly recreational or home use, not for much actual work, i.e. UI's optimized for tablets, and while iOS, etc., can be used for some sort of work, I wouldn't want an actual workstation to be simplified to that extent.
But I'm sure a lot of people do. I'll get used to it eventually
Comments
I do prefer simplicity in desktop environments, but not the iOS-type--I like simplicity as long as it does not hinder functionality or flexibility.
Someone when posting about Gnome 2 support on Arch Linux, summed up my opinion on PC UIs quite well: "All I want is the simple, minimal interface that I had with G2 [Gnome 2], with the cute little foot in the top left corner, my customised menus and the basic window effects; that's it. I don't want Duplo-sized icons, I don't want fancy effects and I don't want the 0.0001 seconds of speed difference or extra security and reliability, because I'd rather my PC burst into flames from some G2 bug than I ever use G3 to do my computing."
Well I'm not that much of an extremist, but his criticism of G3 I'm right on with. Duplo-sized icons, mainly. Tablets? Sure. Desktops? Just no.
I choose to move on to the modern stuff. I was against it at first, but once I gave it a chance, I realized that it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was.
I don't like everything about modern GUI's, but there's not enough I don't like to prevent me from using them.
Windows 8 is still beta, I'll still give it the benefit of a doubt, but it's going to be hard to top Windows 7's UI. I think it was perfected.
I eventually caved and started leaving their default interfaces on, then 7 came out and I thought pinning things and jump lists were mindblowingly useful.
Now making computer images is a part of my job, like it or not I'll have to make a Windows 8 image eventually, probably this time next year at the latest.
I've been staying rather neutral with 8 so far, I don't find Metro overly appealing to typical keyboard/mouse scenarios; but if you are spending exorbitant amounts of time staring at it then you aren't using your computer to do what its meat for, running applications.
x86 based tablets running windows 8 certainly seems like they would be fun toys, Windows on ARM sounds like a stopgap measure to try to steal some tablet market share here and now, then convert people back over to x86.
Please excuse me if this reads as senseless ramblings, I'm only half thinking right now.
I was exactly the same way. Although I kind of just skipped over Vista. When I first installed 7 on my desktop, I tried to make it as classic as possible. I realized that was a mistake. I was missing out on some cool things like pinning.
I still have classic explorer installed, but mostly because A) not having the shared folder icon overlay pisses me off and
At one point I used the classic start menu on 7, but that didn't last long as I quickly grew to prefer the new start menu
Maybe I can just find a way to move the old explorer and start menu from 7 into it.. XD
First of all, there's no options to configure in setup (apart from where to install to). There haven't been since Vista came out. I don't see them changing that any time soon. You configure stuff like that post-install in Programs and Features -> Turn Windows features on or off. So maybe there could be an option there, but not likely.
They're really pushing this metro thing. If they provide any option to disable it, it will probably be either a registry hack or group policy setting.
But I wouldn't hold out much hope for having any officially supported way to disable metro beyond changing your shell.
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156866- ... ons-bones/
...
Just me.
It also didn't help it that it was the successor to Windows 2000, which is still my favourite Windows version.
That said, 8 is going to fail, 9 is going to be amazing. It's going to be like Vista and 7 all over again.
I remember those days. I used to be one of those kids. But I grew up. I actually like Windows 8.
I have to admit to being one of those kids, but I also have to admit that I had a 400MHz Pentium 2.
And that I used Windows 2000 most of the time.
That said I still like 2000 better because it doesn't feel dumped down like XP.. similarly to how I like 7 better than 8 for the same reason.
That's why people who can afford to often use Macs; I feel like the majority of idiot computer users, that are also PC owners, simply *don't* maintain their PCs, even if the OS isn't that crappy. They don't care at all, they just allow them to accumulate problems and malware until they're considered "obsolete," at which point they dish out their money for a new PC running a *new* and "improved" version of Windows.
I'm not an Apple lover, either, but Microsoft just really pisses me off. They absolutely suck at design. They absolutely suck at marketing. They assume everyone loves a "simpler" PC, when it's actually just a slightly more retarded one with more limited functionality.
and to append some stuff; Microsoft has always been a bitch of a company, but their products used to be good, back when they were strictly functional, i.e. Win9x or WinNT. They didn't try at all with the design (which was FINE, compared to when they absolutely fail at copying Apple, with their shiny translucent glass effects), it was all focused and to some extent minimalist. Microsoft doesn't, of course, believe in minimalism, but when they do it accidentally, it works. Win2k was a nice OS. WinXP was in many ways worse, less secure, less efficient, and less focused. It was basically NT4.5 sponsored by Teletubbies, with a more welcoming and less secure login screen...
No, 64bit NT needs 64bit drivers.
2000 and XP were fairly on-par security wise when they were the mainstream. I don't see how the welcome screen was at all less secure than the old box. Nor do I see how they copied Apple with Aero Glass; Apple's never really introduced any glassy elements to Aqua.
Wow.
First of all, like stitch said, 2000 and XP were pretty much the same security wise. XP's flaws got more fame because more people used it.
Take 2000, toss in a couple of elements from ME with a fisher price UI and you've got XP. The core of the OS was the same and just as stable and reliable as 2000. XP was actually better in more than a few ways. Particularly with gaming, and with the later service packs, security.
The problem with your thinking here is that you're approaching this from a geek perspective. The truth is, the average joe (the majority of MS's user base) doesn't want to care about PC maintenance (hell, *I* don't want to care about it). They *do* want a simpler PC. They just want to surf the web, play games, etc. They don't want to know or think about how this mystical, magical computer works.
You've seen those Windows 7 commercials, right? That's not far from the truth, people's feedback for MS is "make it easier to use" well, how? What's particularly difficult? Not easy to figure out. So they approach the problem scientifically by studying eye movements, brain activity, etc. The problem with this is that UI design is not science. It's art. That's something that Apple understands which is why their UI gets praise from the masses while MS's doesn't.
And what all them realize is that the underlying complexity of the OS should be hidden from the end user. Power users know how to get what they want. So the default configurations are kept simplistic to appeal to a wider audience. Apple hides all of the complexity of UNIX from the end user, Microsoft hides the complexity of NT, Ubuntu tries to hide the complexity of Linux.
They all do it, no one is making a geek OS that's complex out of the box. Not anymore. Back in the days when only geeks used computers, it made sense to please them. These days, geeks are the minority, not the majority and the evolution of OS's reflect that. I suggest you make peace with that fact and stop resisting.
BlueSun: you're right, it's all leaning towards making everything less exposed, which for the vast majority makes a great deal of sense... I guess it's just sort of annoying where devices are being made that have mostly recreational or home use, not for much actual work, i.e. UI's optimized for tablets, and while iOS, etc., can be used for some sort of work, I wouldn't want an actual workstation to be simplified to that extent.
But I'm sure a lot of people do. I'll get used to it eventually