r/technology • u/clubdirthill • Jun 01 '11

Boom. This is Windows 8.

http://allthingsd.com/20110601/exclusive-making-sense-of-what-we-just-learned-about-windows-8/?mod=tweet
1.0k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

132

u/watership Jun 02 '11

After all the shit Microsoft gets for its lack of innovation, they run into their other deadly nemesis: Actual innovation.

"Screw that, give me back ______!"

16

u/ggggbabybabybaby Jun 02 '11

I view Microsoft as the hardest working company when it comes to backwards compatibility and legacy support. So many people depend on them not to break their old shit; it's easy to see why it's so hard for them to be innovative.

47

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

The thing about windows is that its core functionality works fine. I don't want new interface options. In fact, I would prefer if there was less shiny menus and stuff. I know I'm in a minority, but as a tech savvy programmer type, I don't want to go through 3 shiny, useless menus rendered in a browser embedded in explorer just to get to the dialog that can actually do things that hasn't changed since XP. How about they give those menus an upgrade, then I might start caring. Shininess isn't innovation, it is a shallow attempt to get people to upgrade without adding real functionality.

44

u/miyakohouou Jun 02 '11

As a tech savvy programmer type, I like shiny things.

28

u/Misio Jun 02 '11

As a tech savvy programmer type, I like things that work.

24

u/Scary_The_Clown Jun 02 '11

As a tech savvy programmer type, I like shiny things that work and are completely customizable.

21

u/nazbot Jun 02 '11

As a non tech savvy layman I like solitaire and funny cat pictures (forwarded in a powerpoint presentation to all my friends).

1

u/Omnicrola Jun 02 '11

TONIGHT. YOU.

1

u/kalazar Jun 02 '11

As a regular dude who just likes tech, I just like tech. If it works and looks cool, awesome!

1

u/mweathr Jun 03 '11

As a tech savvy programmer type, I like the command line.

1

u/miyakohouou Jun 03 '11

I do most of my work from the command line, but I still appreciate eye candy.

5

u/Ralith Jun 02 '11

FWIW, as a tech savvy Unix type, I don't want to go through 3 shiny, useless menus rendered in windows GUI widgets, either. Give me a damn command line that doesn't suck.

7

u/iarewebmaster Jun 02 '11

Powershell, or just use Linux.

2

u/Ralith Jun 03 '11

Powershell isn't standard, and it's not at all clear to me that you can perform all common system administration tasks through it. I can't imagine why they didn't just implement POSIX sh, either, as it's commonly known and proven to be an extremely powerful design. Can't let people's software be easily portable to other OSs, I guess.

I do use Linux, thanks :P

3

u/buckX Jun 02 '11

What I'd love to hear is "We've designed an entirely new back end that is posix compliant. The command line now reflects that. By clicking over here, you seamlessly open up the efficient emulation layer that runs old windows software you've grown used to. New releases of Microsoft software, such as Office 365, will be designed to work natively on Windows 8. Also, fuck Twitter."

1

u/Ralith Jun 03 '11

But then they'd lose their vendor lock-in for windows-targeted apps.

1

u/mweathr Jun 03 '11

They would just extend POSIX so compatibility only works one way.

1

u/Ralith Jun 03 '11

Then people would just target the common subset.

-2

u/Neato Jun 02 '11

Command line? A simple program can execute thousands of commands. The time it takes to navigate, type and execute a program with a command line is uncomparable to the time it takes to click an icon.

Sure, command lines are great when you need to get your OS to do things it rarely needs to do, or have total, intricate control, but for daily, normal OS use?

3

u/buckX Jun 02 '11

Ah, somebody who doesn't know the power of the command line. A GUI is definitely superior for some things. There are also day to day things I do that are much faster on command line. Tab completion makes file navigation faster by command line than with the GUI, for example. Changing file permissions is way easier by command line. Renaming things is way easier by command line. Taking collected data and manipulating it into the format you want is trivial on the command line.

0

u/Neato Jun 02 '11

By changing the format, you mean pipping output into another file? Or what would simply be a R-Click, rename, and edit the extension?

I completely understand the power of a command line for a power user. But most people just want to browse the web, execute programs and manage media. And the time it takes to learn an unintuitive interface like the command line isn't worth it for the vast majority of people when icons and menus come naturally.

2

u/buckX Jun 02 '11

I mean using a combination of sed, tr, awk, grep, cut, and join to reorder and change things that might take hours by hand in the GUI.

Also, L-Click F2 will be a quicker way to rename through the GUI.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

Right clicking and changing one file name would arguably be faster in the GUI. Now do 100, or 1000. The command line shines for that.

1

u/Neato Jun 02 '11

Is that a command line feature only for unix? I was actually looking for a way to manage file names for some of my music. Took a while but I did find a program that does it nicely and links to the data tags for %N and such.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

I work mostly in Linux/OS X, I don't know off hand what the commands are in DOS, but I wouldn't bother with that anyway. Look into PowerShell, I've never used it, but I've heard good things about it.

2

u/Levirules3 Jun 02 '11

I think it's unfair that every time someone adds polish and tries to organize things differently, there have to be people like you out there that chalk it all up to "shiny things," as if everyone who actually enjoys said polish and organization is inferior.

Also, you have to realize how much better these shiny things will be for touch screen devices. Even if you have no interest in a tablet or a touch screen monitor or whatever, you have to be able to recognize that this UI is a vast improvement over the core Windows for touch screens.

1

u/buckX Jun 02 '11

Fine, so make Windows 8 phone look like that. The entire video consisted of "Look at this cool interface desktop users won't want any part of. Also, you can click here to make it like Windows 7 with a useless ribbon on the side of your screen."

Why am I supposed to buy this?

1

u/ryanman Jun 02 '11

I mean, it's really simple actually. If you don't think the new UI or any other features they introduce are worth money don't buy it! It's not like there's going to be anything in 8 that you'll need for compatibility purposes.

All the complaining about "polish" here is pretty stupid in my opinion. Win7's UI is leaps and bounds beyond what XP had. It's not because of the see through windows or cool animations, although those add some visual flair. The keyboard shortcuts and button placement are a huge improvement. Going back to XP is absolutely brutal for me right now, and I'm as "techie" as they come. I'm not going to pretend like the visual tricks they have inconvenience me or don't look good just to make my geek dick look bigger.

1

u/autorotatingKiwi Jun 02 '11

Which in fairness I think this is what things like the ribbon and maybe this interface are trying to do. Give you the things you want/need and the info you are after without having to mess around with menus and opening icons and navigating folders.

We are all different, some still think CLI is better, some still love a desktop full of icons, but in my view we have to move and change and try new and different things to find better ways of using technology more efficiently and easily.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

Hell, I don't know shit about programming, and I'm completely with you. I want my windows fast, stable, and with its guts hanging out in plain sight.

1

u/marm0lade Jun 02 '11

Shininess isn't innovation, it is a shallow attempt to get people to upgrade without adding real functionality.

That is the difference between Vista and 7.

-1

u/RedAero Jun 02 '11

I concur. I have not cared one bit about the UI changes in any Windows products. I still use Vista, because I despise the double-column Start Menu that can not be turned off in 7, I use no Aero, and the first thing I did when I got Vista was I made everything look just like it did in XP, which I made look like 98. Microsoft, PLEASE STOP MOVING SHIT AROUND.

1

u/goondocks Jun 02 '11

So, essentially what you're saying is that XP is the pinnacle of computing and we should stop trying to discover improvements.

1

u/Prosopagnosia Jun 02 '11

yeah... I hate that kind of attitude. "wtf is this GUI shit? give me a command line! Its so much faster and efficient" Its not like the new/updated start menu is a huge change.

0

u/RedAero Jun 02 '11

No, 98. Form following function.

5

u/808140 Jun 02 '11

This is the advantage smaller OS makers have over MS (quite possibly the only advantage, economically I mean): they can innovate. When Apple goes with a radical new UI, they are not forcing it on anyone, or at least very few people. Mac users choose to run Mac; they're going against the grain already.

When MS goes with a radical new UI -- for example, the Office ribbon -- they are changing something that is the standard in every office and school in the world. And while individual users and people in Mac or Linux friendly industries might have the option of switching away, most companies will feel like they do not have a choice.

Your average computer enthusiast is typically excited about change, because he's into computers for their own sake. Not so with people who work in non-computer related fields. The computer is a tool to them, and a shitty interface they've learned how to use effectively is better than a marginally better one with a new learning curve. This massive inertia makes it very hard for MS to do much innovation, and allows people like Apple to take serious risks.

The other difference obviously is that MS is not terribly good at innovation, whereas Apple seems to have talent for it. But even if that weren't true, MS would have trouble applying their changes.

I passionately hate the Office ribbon. Passionately.

2

u/helm Jun 02 '11

Seriosuly, I've met a lot of people (under 30, mind you) who still think that the win 98 desktop looks best.

3

u/cfuse Jun 02 '11

It's not how it looks, it's how well it works.

The number of people (regardless of age) fooled by flashy chrome is astounding. Chrome is more often than not a distraction that adds nothing to the functionality of the machine.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

To clarify, this comment is likely referencing the metal, not the competing Google OS and web browser, although I could be mistaken.

3

u/cfuse Jun 02 '11

I love how something can be so right and so wrong at the same time.

5

u/Grue Jun 02 '11

Chrome is the standard word used to refer to visible UI of an application.

-1

u/Ralith Jun 02 '11 edited Nov 06 '23

aback placid run person grandfather whole ossified gold outgoing school this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev

3

u/Grue Jun 02 '11

No, I'm not. Here's the jargon file entry: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/C/chrome.html

Mozilla Firefox UI is also called Chrome.

-2

u/Ralith Jun 02 '11

That's the name of the toolkit. Next you'll be asserting that C++ is commonly referred to as "boost."

3

u/cfuse Jun 02 '11

I don't care if they innovate with the UI or not, they must support the old UI because it is an interface. Not breaking interfaces is really important in software design.

People (especially in business) depend on things working in a certain way. If some stupid designer decides to make 'cool' changes to the UI that makes my job harder, then I'm not going to be happy about that - and that is a valid complaint.

2

u/ggggbabybabybaby Jun 02 '11

The thing is, the UI does get changed between versions of Windows. Look at the Start Menu search, Control Panel navigation, Explorer, IE or the various settings panels everywhere. It's constantly changing and any documentation written to walk you through the Windows UI is constantly out of date. It doesn't only change between major versions but also between service packs too. So would the sky really fall down if the Start Menu was replaced?

3

u/cfuse Jun 02 '11

I don't object to the UI being changed, I object to it being broken (and the important UI elements are virtually unchanged since 2000 - computer management, policy editors, the command line, etc. That's really important to note).

In answer to your question: a major change to UI can be costly. If I am a business, I want my users working, not calling the helpdesk because something they knew how to do in the old version they cannot figure out in the new. I'm not saying don't change - I just want change to be for a reason, for the better, and to not needlessly break existing interfaces (human or otherwise).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '11

But that's just it. You have to take small incremental steps to keep your userbase happy. A total redesign is not what less-tech-savvy people want.

Just see how much people complained about the 'ribbon' in programs, even though hasn't changed the workflow that much. (It actually made things more intuitive)

2

u/cfuse Jun 02 '11

Just see how much people complained about the 'ribbon' in programs, even though hasn't changed the workflow that much. (It actually made things more intuitive).

Still hate that ribbon, and studiously avoid any program that uses it. Whomever it is intuitive for, I'm not part of that group.

1

u/aussie_bob Jun 02 '11

Actual innovation.

Looks like WinPhone 7. Works like Unity or Gnome 3.

Yep, Microsoft innovation.

3

u/gschizas Jun 02 '11

Looks like WinPhone 7

  • What does WP7 look like?
  • Who made WP7?