Why so much people hate windows 8.x

[Nuke]

i dont like touchscreens, they are always plastered with finger prints. i yell at people who touch my display. its just not practical for a large high resolution display to be a touchscreen. i dont even like them on portable devices.

[Eric S]

My main problem is the touchscreen UI. My aunt has an all in one desktop with windows 8 and I've used it a bit and my first thought was how fast your arm would get tired.

I had originally commented on that, but I edited it out when I was trying to make my last post read less like a rant. Microsoft is trying to grow beyond the desktop by turning its back on the desktop. Touch screen UI's don't work well for vertical displays that are close to shoulder height. Mice didn't work well with Win 8.0. I hadn't even considered how awkward/expensive touchscreen input would be in a multi-display environment. This may be a good decision for Microsoft in the long run, but it's not a good decision for the desktop environment. It's basically betting on it becoming a not-significant market. Win 8.1, and the Win 9 previews moreso, at least act like they don't expect the traditional desktop environment to disappear overnight.

[Seret]

Desktop and mobile convergence is the way all OSes are going at the moment, so the idea was sound. The implementation was pretty poor though.

Changing the traditional desktop paradigm is always fraught, a lot of people will buck against it. Same thing happened with Gnome 3 and Unity when Linux desktops started going the same way. Microsoft have done a spectacularly inept job of it though.

[Nibb31]

I still don't think it's a sound idea. Desktop/laptops are for production. Tablets/phones are for consumption. In the real world they are all used very differently and tablets are far from replacing laptops/desktops in the workplace.

Commonality is something that the marketing types in the industry are pushing for, because it sounds neat and has potential savings, but actual users simply don't expect that commonality in different devices, just like they don't expect their microwave to have the same user interface as their car.

The problem is market saturation and Moore's law starting to stagnate. Except for hard-core gamers, a decent 5 year-old PC is still perfectly adequate for office stuff and web browsing, which is what 99% of PCs are used for. This is why the tablet market was created, although nobody really needs one. That was successful, so now the computer industry is pushing all sorts of "innovations" that people don't need and hoping that it will push people to replace their old PC. Touch screens on desktops is one of those things that nobody really wanted. Windows 8 was launched 2 years ago already and people simply still aren't buying touch-screen PCs. I suspect that the "wearable" or "smartwatch" market will go the same way, because they are solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[Nuke]

thing is touch screens are nothing new. the first one came out in 1983! for nearly 3 decades they were completely impractical. only through success in the ultra portable niche have we finally found a place for them. however this does not make them any more practical for a desktop. i certainly dont want to hover my arm in front of my screen all day, and i dont think anyone who works in a cubicle wants to either. thats where resistance to global acceptance of touch screens will come from, in the office. it would be rather foolish to completely alienate mouse users to push an impractical technology.

[Seret]

I still don't think it's a sound idea. Desktop/laptops are for production. Tablets/phones are for consumption.

People switch between modes though, it's trying to tie them to one machine to do everything that's becoming impractical. The goal of convergence is to enable you to maintain access to the same information presented in the same way when you shift from sitting at a desk to riding on a train. Ideally you'd also be able to use the same device in both places. Mobile devices are getting powerful enough to run a decent desktop now, you don't need a huge beige box full of cutting edge chips to run desktop apps (a point you allude to at the end of your post). There's already been some attempt to create one device that can switch modes (Asus Transformers, etc), I'd expect that to continue. No idea if it'll become the norm or just a niche. It might just take somebody producing the right machine, or pushing it hard enough through marketing. Who knows?

In the real world they are all used very differently and tablets are far from replacing laptops/desktops in the workplace.

They augment them, and do sometimes replace them. I work in engineering, we find laptops a constant hassle for the guys on the shop floor, so we're making much more use of tablets and leaving laptops for us chairborne rangers that spend significant time in an office. We're migrating all our tools to web apps so that they're platform agnostic. Where we'd like to be is giving the technicians who would previously have sat down at a desktop at the end of their shift to write up their work a tablet they can take with them when they work.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Seret

[ZedNova]

I've used windows 8.1 myself, and I have to say it's really awesome on tablets. You can run any windows based application on your tablet, this gives it a lot more flexibility over iOs because now i can use third party software that hasn't gone through a pre-approval process. Additionally, the charms menu is actually useful on touch devices.

On the desktop it's really not good at all, it boots pretty damn fast, the applications load quickly- But other than that it's the Metro UI that really gets in the way and reduces the overall "Greatness" of windows 8 on desktops.

[EdFred]

www.classicshell.net

First thing that gets installed on any Win8 computer I come in contact with.

[Eric S]

Desktop and mobile convergence is the way all OSes are going at the moment, so the idea was sound. The implementation was pretty poor though.

Agreed completely, I don't mind convergence, I just think that Win 8.0 specifically acted like desktops were going away faster than they are.

[Camacha]

I hate change.

The whole issue in a nutshell. Brilliant!

[Idobox]

Personally, I like my computer to do what I tell it to do, and only that. I still get pissed at the popup window every time I plug something or at the automatic updates, I don't care for eye candy, transparent windows or anti-aliasing, just keep everything square and a single color, and use resources on other stuff. The only real improvement in UI for me since the times of windows 95 is tabs in browsers.

And Windows 8 is the exact opposite of what I am looking in a UI.

I don't know how it fares in terms of actual OS stuff, but if I spend more than 5 minutes trying to find the file manager, then it's a big no for me.

And I have used MacOS, Ubuntu, Debian, iOs, Android and even Bada, and I only hated Bada.

[Camacha]

I don't know how it fares in terms of actual OS stuff, but if I spend more than 5 minutes trying to find the file manager, then it's a big no for me.

Winkey + S > enter what you are looking for. If you are searching for specific settings you can also use winkey + W.

Or did you mean the first time? Because that is exactly what people have been saying - if it is different (.ie you need to have a look around) people detest it with hatred.

[Seret]

Personally, I like my computer to do what I tell it to do, and only that.

<snip>

And I have used MacOS, Ubuntu, Debian, iOs, Android and even Bada, and I only hated Bada.

Surprised you're using Win8 much if you like a simple machine. Linux is pretty much the daddy for controlling your computing experience.

[Idobox]

Winkey + S > enter what you are looking for. If you are searching for specific settings you can also use winkey + W.

Or did you mean the first time? Because that is exactly what people have been saying - if it is different (.ie you need to have a look around) people detest it with hatred.

The first time I used windows 98, xp, vista, seven, OS2, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, macOS 9 and 10, I never had any comparable issues finding stuff (except for ejecting CDs on mac by putting them in the bin), although they had different interfaces, different trees, different looks.

iOs and Android are obviously very different, and I didn't have any particular issues with them, although I needed to learn stuff.

The problem isn't hatred for difference, the problem is that win8 interface looks like a game menu or smartphone, which is probably great to access facebook from your tablet, but completely impractical for my needs on a desktop: I want data on my screen to be displayed with high density and with some logic, and the UI from win95 already did that.

Surprised you're using Win8 much if you like a simple machine. Linux is pretty much the daddy for controlling your computing experience.

I don't. Win7 at work (some proprietary softs) and for games, Ubuntu stripped almost bare for the rest.

But the computer labs use win8, and I've had to use them.

[-Velocity-]

I think that if people got over it that 8.x is simply different and gave it a chance, they would probably rather like it. Instead, people encounter something they are not used and cannot accept that it might actually be different. If you go into it with that attitude, it will remain a wonky version of 7.

Of course we go with that attitude because NO CHANGE is exactly what most or at least many people want. We don't want to have to learn how to do everything all over again. Improvements to functionality, new features, better efficiency- that's what we want with new versions of software, not a completely redesigned UI that keeps me scratching my head, just figuring out how to do the most basic of tasks.

As an example, I PASSIONATELY hate all the changes they keep making to Microsoft office. It's not that the new interface is bad, it's just that the change is bad. We learn a certain system, become proficient at it, and then BAM Microsoft changes everything and it's back to square one. I am JUST NOW getting used to everything in Office 2007- and I've maybe made 1000 PPT slides and 300 to 500 pages of text in it- who knows, maybe more, as it use it every day just about. I've been using it since it came out, and I am FINALLY just NOW getting used to it. I am no idiot either- oh I could figure out how to do stuff from day 1 (well, after people showed me where the File menu went to...). It's just that I want- no, need- to become so proficient at operating a piece of software that it's second nature and I don't have to think about it at all. I don't want to have to break my concentration on what I'm thinking about to figure out how to turn off snap to grid or remove the space MS office keeps inserting after every damn paragraph. Information has to flow seamlessly from my head to the word processor or slide with no hick-ups or annoying distractions.

[Javster]

I hate change.

I know, I'd rather the shopkeeper kept my loose coins so i wouldn't have to deal with them!

[Technical Ben]

I think that if people got over it that 8.x is simply different and gave it a chance, they would probably rather like it. Instead, people encounter something they are not used and cannot accept that it might actually be different. If you go into it with that attitude, it will remain a wonky version of 7. If you judge it on its own merits, it is actually a pretty good OS. If anything is at fault, it is that Microsoft did not prepare an extremely conservative public enough to accept and understand the new ways of doing things. People do not like change at all, even if it is for the better, and especially so with the digibetic audience that is the Windows crowd.

Of course, Microsoft tried a couple of new ideas and as with all new things, some elements are more successful than others. That means you have to sharpen and improve them, but instead it seems that 9 is going to undo most of the elements that made 8 what it is. I think that is a shame, as it is much more a question of politics and perception than intrinsic quality. I certainly needed some tweaking in certain areas, that does not mean the ideas were bad.

I can honestly say that Windows 8 is the best OS I ever used. I had to fight with it for about and hour and a half, after that my distaste melted away.

Nah. There are many things, even in 8.1 that are broken by design. By that, I mean they went "this is a great idea, we can take off 2 of the wheels of the car, stick a spike in the centre of the steering wheel, and set the seat belts on fire" and someone said "yep, go with it!".

Example in point. As I've used Windows for countless years, I finally decided to give MS the benefit of the doubt and use "install updates automatically". I always use "install ONLY when I decide" as I don't trust them. In all instances of windows, once an install has finished, you get asked "do you wish to restart" with a yes/no or a "delay". If it's a very important update, you can only delay. But you CAN delay, as you might have important work running, and not be able to turn off the PC.

Well guess what, by design Windows 8 (and 8.1) automatically turns your computer off in the middle of work to "update". Yep, if you have not saved that work you spent 8 hours on, your done for. But no worries, right, you did save... and it corrupted because of a forced update. But again, no worries, because you have backups... which were disabled from 7 to 8 for "design choices"... GAH!!!

I do not take kindly to companies who think they know so much better than the user/customer that they are willing to risk such things for "progress".

[Epthelyn]

Nah. There are many things, even in 8.1 that are broken by design. By that, I mean they went "this is a great idea, we can take off 2 of the wheels of the car, stick a spike in the centre of the steering wheel, and set the seat belts on fire" and someone said "yep, go with it!".

Example in point. As I've used Windows for countless years, I finally decided to give MS the benefit of the doubt and use "install updates automatically". I always use "install ONLY when I decide" as I don't trust them. In all instances of windows, once an install has finished, you get asked "do you wish to restart" with a yes/no or a "delay". If it's a very important update, you can only delay. But you CAN delay, as you might have important work running, and not be able to turn off the PC.

Well guess what, by design Windows 8 (and 8.1) automatically turns your computer off in the middle of work to "update". Yep, if you have not saved that work you spent 8 hours on, your done for. But no worries, right, you did save... and it corrupted because of a forced update. But again, no worries, because you have backups... which were disabled from 7 to 8 for "design choices"... GAH!!!

I do not take kindly to companies who think they know so much better than the user/customer that they are willing to risk such things for "progress".

As if the auto-update feature isn't equally ridiculous in 7 and earlier...

I've managed to turn off all updates in 8.1. How? Don't download anything. I've yet to have an important update that overrides that preference on my PC or the Windows 8 laptop I used for a year.

[Technical Ben]

"As if the auto-update feature isn't equally ridiculous in 7 and earlier..." Plain and simply, Windows 7 and below are not "equally ridiculous". Give one example if you can!

Windows 8, by design, does not give you the option to stop a forced restart when updating automatically.

All other versions of windows, including 7 do.

All versions allow you to turn off autoupdates. Only one does not warn you, and restarts your PC.

[vger]

It's quite simple. Microsoft no longer designs computer interfaces for people who use computers. They design them for people who use phones.

[PakledHostage]

It's quite simple. Microsoft no longer designs computer interfaces for people who use computers. They design them for people who use phones.

It is worse than that:

[Camacha]

I do not take kindly to companies who think they know so much better than the user/customer that they are willing to risk such things for "progress".

You must hate a lot of companies

[Nibb31]

Or did you mean the first time? Because that is exactly what people have been saying - if it is different (.ie you need to have a look around) people detest it with hatred.

People are usually less resistant to change when they see that they can benefit from it. They can embrace change if that change makes their lives better. The problem with Windows 8 was that it was change for the sake of change. It isn't intrinsically easier to use. It doesn't do more stuff than it did before. People didn't see a clear benefit in that change, all they saw was the stuff they were used had all been moved around and hidden for the sake of change.

And the objective underlying problems with the OS have nothing to do with change. Things like this are objectively confusing, however you look at:

- hidden gestures that conflict with established UI controls (corner hovering where there is a close button or a scroll bar),

- inconsistency between some apps that have a close/minimize/maximize button and others that you can't close and are forces to the full screen

- awkward scrolling that unpredictably goes horizontal or vertical just for the sake of it.

- the lack of actual visual elements indicating that things can do stuff (buttons or links appear as plain text making it unclear what is clickable and what isn't).

- the whole schizophreny of having two different operating systems, each with their own conventions, on the same computer.

- constant swapping between the Start screen and the desktop (for a search, to swap printers, or to connect a device for example) breaks continuity and immersion.

This article from the Nielsen Norman Group (a well-known authority in the user experience community) pretty much sums it up:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability/

It's an article based on actual user panels from people who's everyday job is to analyze and design user interfaces and to establish the theory and guidelines for a good user experience. They have solid background in cognitive science, design, and IT. They are not your typical fanboy geek.

So you see, it's not just about change. It's about change that introduces poor usability without bringing any significant improvements to the user. Yes, you can train your brain to accept these quirks, but why should you? What extra benefit do you get as a reward for all the mental gymnastics? And for some people, especially those who are not as comfortable as we are with computers, those mental gymnastics are simply too much effort to ask for, and they are quite justified in rejecting it.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Nibb31

[Beowolf]

I think that if people got over it that 8.x is simply different and gave it a chance, they would probably rather like it. Instead, people encounter something they are not used and cannot accept that it might actually be different. If you go into it with that attitude, it will remain a wonky version of 7. If you judge it on its own merits, it is actually a pretty good OS.

I respectfully disagree. While Win8.0 was usable with kbd/mouse, it was distinctly less efficient than the earlier UI. People who have to read the menus and hunt for the option they wanted anyway won't see a big difference, but obsessive power users like me who knew dozens of keyboard shortcuts, and automatically move the mouse to exactly where the control I wanted was about to appear, we noticed! And it wasn't just a matter of learning some new locations; too much of the UI became dynamic so you HAD to read the silly thing. There were a bunch of articles that compared UI speed and efficiency between releases that you can Google if you want details. The efficiency loss was even worse for those running a desktop with several monitors.

It's also inconsistently designed. People documented FOUR completely different UI styles within Win8. Besides classic Win and Metro, many control panel apps have a third, webpage-like interface, and a few MS apps even deviated from that with what looked like the web interface, but worked differently and has flat buttons instead of links. This is more a MS problem than a Win8 problem though. This condition has existed, and gradually gotten worse, ever since Vista.

Microsoft did a dumb thing, but at least they listened. Win8.1 fixed 95% of my problems. I installed a strictly keyboard-based app launcher, and haven't seen the start menu, the ridiculous "charms" thing (which MS has eliminated in Win9) nor the Metro screen since. Even better, the "right-click on the Start Button" shortcuts they added save me all sorts of time.

Once I got past those UI issues, it was an awesome OS. The most reliable and most secure Windows ever, and I'll never forget the feeling when my new laptop did a shutdown/restart in 8 seconds total! SWEET! When they let me run Metro apps inside a window, supposedly coming in 9, I might even use them.

[weeble]

First reason: it's inefficient.

Second reason: I don't own a touch screen.

Third reason: I want my PC to act like a PC not a tablet. If I want to use my tablet I'll use that.

Fourth reason: The changes didn't benefit me in the slightest bit, quite the contrary actually. Which is why I highly recommend using Classic Shell.

Edited September 23, 2014 by weeble