win8.1 Your observations on Windows 8.1 update 1 (a.k.a. Feature Pack)

[i_was_here]

What desktop apps? There are no desktop versions of popular consumer apps.

WMP and Windows Photo Viewer. If as PGHammer says that the ModernUI apps are set as default because they are better than their desktop counterparts, why not improve the desktop apps? If there are both ModernUI and desktop applications for viewing images or videos, why does the ModernUI version get set as the default app?

[Dot Matrix]

WMP and Windows Photo Viewer. If as PGHammer says that the ModernUI apps are set as default because they are better than their desktop counterparts, why not improve the desktop apps? If there are both ModernUI and desktop applications for viewing images or videos, why does the ModernUI version get set as the default app?

It was pretty clear that with Windows 8, Microsoft was looking to cut the legacy cord, and make a fresh start. Thanks to a vocal few, they came running back, and went full retard in throwing desktop components where they don't belong in an apparent panic. Instead of creating system unity, they created more system disunity. I'm honestly afraid that's what they'll do more of in Windows 9, and if you ask me, it's not going to end well for them. The desktop has had its run. It's stale, largely legacy, extremely clunky, and has little life in it at this point in the eyes of developers and consumers alike. But (again) thanks to a vocal few, we'll be stuck in a rut for the next 10 years as they scream, and cry because they feel Microsoft is taking away their manhood. Microsoft is right to be cutting it loose. Too much legacy has never been a good thing.

 

WMP hasn't received a worthwhile update since the Vista days, and Windows Photo Viewer hasn't been updated since about the same time period. Hell, Microsoft has apparently even abandoned the Live Suite of applications. The downside to these applications is that they don't tie into Microsoft's new services at all, nor do they have equivalents on Windows Phone. Metro applications do. So it only makes more sense to develop these new Metro applications over their deprecated desktop counterparts.

 

Many people call these applications "mobile applications," but I don't see them as such. These applications are exactly what applications should be. Simple, and easy to use. There is no written rule that just because I'm on a desktop, I need to be running intensive, clunky programs full of buttons, menus, and other eyesores.

[Lord Method Man]

Nice update. I really think they may be getting their act together.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

It was pretty clear that with Windows 8, Microsoft was looking to cut the legacy cord, and make a fresh start. Thanks to a vocal few, they came running back, and went full retard in throwing desktop components where they don't belong in an apparent panic. I'm honestly afraid that's what they'll do more of in Windows 9, and if you ask me, it's not going to end well for them. The desktop has had its run. It's stale, largely legacy, extremely clunky, and has little life in it at this point in the eyes of developers and consumers alike. But (again) thanks to a vocal few, we'll be stuck in a rut for the next 10 years as they scream, and cry because they feel Microsoft is taking away their manhood. Microsoft is right to be cutting it loose. Too much legacy has never been a good thing.

I sometimes wonder if you are being serious when you write things about the desktop being legacy, clunky, etc. This has been stated before on neowin, but MS specifically stated that the desktop wasn't legacy in posts on their blog (I believe others and I have said as much to you before). It's worth noting that you can't arbitrarily make something legacy when the majority of the user-base, developers, and applications are there. Deprecating the desktop would have meant the demise of Windows for corporate and professional use so I rather doubt that was ever on the table from MS's viewpoint.

[Dot Matrix]

I sometimes wonder if you are being serious when you write things about the desktop being legacy, clunky, etc. This has been stated before on neowin, but MS specifically stated that the desktop wasn't legacy in posts on their blog (I believe others and I have said as much to you before). It's worth noting that you can't arbitrarily make something legacy when the majority of the user-base, developers, and applications are there. Deprecating the desktop would have meant the demise of Windows for corporate and professional use so I rather doubt that was ever on the table from MS's viewpoint.

I am being serious. The desktop is largely legacy. Win32 dates back how many years now? Computing is moving off in another direction that the desktop just doesn't work with. It either needs updated, or completely trashed all together (hence legacy).

It's completely clunky, there's no unified Control Panel, there's archaic settings, and menus thrown all over the place remaining from only God knows when, and there's registry settings that no one at Microsoft has any idea about anymore.

And if there's still a developer base for it, then they must have one hell of a cloak, because I don't see very many left. Where I work, less than 10% of the applications we run are native, the majority being delivered to users through the browser. In the consumer/educational space, forget it - They're off in Apple and Android land.

Keep on mind, this is just the technical aspects. Windows still has (unfairly) an image problem in the eyes of many people. The idea that Windows suffers from many problems and requires extensive upkeep still persists.

Either way you look at it, Windows as a whole is unsustainable. It either needs cleaned up, or completely re-done, which is exactly what Microsoft was attempting to do with Windows 8.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I am being serious. The desktop is largely legacy. Win32 dates back how many years now?

Having older APIs doesn't make something legacy. If that were true, then much of HPC would be legacy given the focus on MPI and MPI support  :laugh: This beating a dead horse though with the legacy talk. You've made these same arguments in other threads and other's have countered, etc.

 

It's completely clunky, there's no unified Control Panel, there's archaic settings, and menus thrown all over the place remaining from only God knows when, and there's registry settings that no one at Microsoft has any idea about anymore.

Most of these things are not related to UI (other than the menu thing, but I don't follow what you are talking about there). This is mostly just an argument about the buildup of cruft in the OS over the past decades. Unfortunately, it isn't going away regardless of MS's decision on UI. You'll get the control panel, archaic settings, complex policies, and the registry regardless of whether the desktop is let loose or not.

 

And if there's still a developer base for it, then they must have one hell of a cloak, because I don't see very many left. Where I work, less than 10% of the applications we run are native, the majority being delivered to users through the browser. In the consumer/educational space, forget it - They're off in Apple and Android land.

That is just anecdotal. I can make a similar argument: where I work almost no-one runs Windows 8 and 100% of the applications that we run are native. You'd be hard pressed to find any sort of development tool that includes hardware aspects in the form of a Win8 app. I'm talking about things that are for embedded development, simulation, pcb design, ic design, etc. You throw out the Windows desktop and you've killed about 4 different industries there. After which, the development and customers migrate to Linux not Win8. Why? Because the applications are complex, can require hardware device drivers, and simply don't belong or fit with a simplified interface.

 

Sure, your company may run mostly non-native browser apps as per their needs, but you shouldn't be fooled into thinking that's the norm or that it is even possible in other fields or industries.

 

Either way you look at it, Windows as a whole is unsustainable. It either needs cleaned up, or completely re-done, which is exactly what Microsoft was attempting to do with Windows 8.

They didn't opt for a new design because Windows needed to be "cleaned up" or "re-done." They did it for much more pragmatic reasons: to capture additional markets. Desktop Windows simply didn't fit within the mobile markets. 

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Ars Technica agrees with Dot Matrix: they think the changes in 8.11 create unholy mess.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Ars Technica agrees with Dot Matrix: they think the changes in 8.11 create unholy mess.

Well not Ars per-say, just DrPizza. He's a good in-depth reporter though so I take his opinions with more than a grain of salt (usually). 

[Steven P. Administrators]

If you are one of the daring souls who took the plunge.

 

I've noticed the following so far:

 

- Clicking the X in the Metro top bar does not fully close the app. It still appears in Task Manager.

Tried this and the app closed completely for me? Wasn't in task manager anymore.

 

Also yeah, it's a mess that there are two control panels, the modern one also requires more click throughs and searching to get what you want done because of all the nested options.

[neo1911]

<snipped>

I for one clearly liked the changes. Even if it means to re-learn few things. Microsoft seems to be finally on track. Now hurry up with resizing modern apps on desktop.

Even the left side modern apps multitasking is not needed. It should have been removed in this update 1.

[HawkMan]

Tried this and the app closed completely for me? Wasn't in task manager anymore.

 

Also yeah, it's a mess that there are two control panels, the modern one also requires more click throughs and searching to get what you want done because of all the nested options.

 

why use any control panel at all, they're all pretty heavy and requires digging to get what you want and unless you know where it is alredy you'll have to go back and forth. jut hit the windows key and type what you want, it's generally a million times faster than any control panel.unless you want one of the tools that are already int he power menu then that's faster. 

Even the left side modern apps multitasking is not needed. It should have been removed in this update 1.

 

I think you'll find that eventually once modern gets fully integrated with the desktop, that's the task switches that will stay, though in an updated form from the one that's there now. 

[George P Global Moderator]

Saying the left hand modern task switcher isn't needed is silly, how are you going to switch on your tablet then?  If you're on a desktop without touch then you don't even have to use it.   People complain that MS takes something out that they used and want it back but then at the same time argue that MS should take out something else that they don't use.   How much more of a hypocrite can you get?

[anidais]

I really want MS to make it like the right click menu in search. It looks more fitting than the aero style context menu! Just looked, they changed it the context menu to be more flat, but I would rather them put that context menu on the desktop, instead of the vista context menu, and then have the metro style right click to be on the start screen.

 

 

So they didn't fix this for the RTM (as I suspected). The context menus in the Start Screen should be the modern ones. This is a mess. 3 different context menu styles in a single OS. They really don't pay attention to details, or don't care.

[Dot Matrix]

Ars Technica agrees with Dot Matrix: they think the changes in 8.11 create unholy mess.

 

THANK YOU PETER BRIGHT!

 

"I don't happen to think that ignoring the cries for a Start menu is actually a bad thing; I think the Start menu is past its prime. It doesn't scale well, making search all but essential, and the Start screen is a better place for pinning commonly-used applications than the Start menu ever was.

But everyone who thinks that it's unusable, or only usable with touch?which isn't the case?will continue to make that complaint.

And while I think some parts are incremental improvements?the new titlebars, for example, don't detract from the Metro design, but do make things a little more obvious for mouse users, and the changed defaults seem harmless enough?other parts, such as the Start screen context menus and the awkward attempt to bring the taskbar into the Metro world, aren't improvements at all. The Windows 8 interface already has consistency issues, and Update 1 is making these worse.

Fiddling with defaults isn't going to win over anyone bemoaning the loss of the Start menu. Nor is adding a context menu instead of an app bar. Update 1 compromises aspects of the Windows 8 design vision, and I'm just not sure why. These aren't compromises that are going to make people flock to the new platform, and they don't really make it any better."

 

^THIS, RIGHT HERE!

[macoman]

So they didn't fix this for the RTM (as I suspected). The context menus in the Start Screen should be the modern ones. This is a mess. 3 different context menu styles in a single OS. They really don't pay attention to details, or don't care.

i agreed, or they have a poor implementation process, don't care or they just want to fix the mess on Windows 9

[Dot Matrix]

Having older APIs doesn't make something legacy. If that were true, then much of HPC would be legacy given the focus on MPI and MPI support  :laugh: This beating a dead horse though with the legacy talk. You've made these same arguments in other threads and other's have countered, etc.

Go back and re-read my original post. I added more to it after you quoted it, it looks like. But I find Win32 largely legacy because the marketplace is moving on from it. Your most common applications today are either web apps, or modern, "mobile" applications built for iOS, Android, and Microsoft's Metro platforms. People are pushing for platforms that can scale, and Windows' old Win32 environment does not in the slightest.

 

Most of these things are not related to UI (other than the menu thing, but I don't follow what you are talking about there). This is mostly just an argument about the buildup of cruft in the OS over the past decades. Unfortunately, it isn't going away regardless of MS's decision on UI. You'll get the control panel, archaic settings, complex policies, and the registry regardless of whether the desktop is let loose or not.

What I mean by that is that Windows' desktop UI is severely dated. Much like the Start Menu, it was built for a different time, and was largely ignored. It's been left to gather weeds, and because of that has bits and pieces of only God knows what left over, and is completely archaic to use most days. People have been asking Microsoft to streamline the Windows interface for years, and finally, they are doing just that - with Metro.

 

That is just anecdotal. I can make a similar argument: where I work almost no-one runs Windows 8 and 100% of the applications that we run are native. You'd be hard pressed to find any sort of development tool that includes hardware aspects in the form of a Win8 app. I'm talking about things that are for embedded development, simulation, pcb design, ic design, etc. You throw out the Windows desktop and you've killed about 4 different industries there. After which, the development and customers migrate to Linux not Win8. Why? Because the applications are complex, can require hardware device drivers, and simply don't belong or fit with a simplified interface.

As anecdotal as it may be, you cannot deny the platform has been bleeding developers. Back when I was younger, everything ran on Windows. Games, educational applications, office applications, etc. Today, that's not the case anymore.

 

They didn't opt for a new design because Windows needed to be "cleaned up" or "re-done." They did it for much more pragmatic reasons: to capture additional markets. Desktop Windows simply didn't fit within the mobile markets.

The fact that Windows has all this legacy and bad karma built up, wasn't going to allow Microsoft to capture those markets until changes were made. Windows 7 proved to be a failure for Microsoft after they shoehorned it onto devices where it didn't belong. Like I said above, Windows' legacy came back and bit them hard here. Thanks to Win32's inability to scale, Microsoft was finally forced to clean up, and re-do Windows in order to move into additional markets.

 

 

 

Even the left side modern apps multitasking is not needed. It should have been removed in this update 1.

I use the Metro task switcher daily on my machines. It's an essential piece of the OS if you're using Metro applications.

[mzta cody]

Win32 (usually referred to by its proxy name, "The Desktop") is not going anywhere soon. It will be a long time, if ever, before WinRT has the rich and time-tested API set that would unthrone it.

People who insist on attaching the buzzword "legacy" to anything that started initial development more than 4 or 5 years ago have no logical reason to do so. This behavior is rooted solely in emotion and seems more like some kind of psychological maneuvering exhibited people with a specific personality type.

That type would be best referred to by the word "Neophile".

From Wikipedia:

• The ability to adapt rapidly to extreme change
• A distaste or downright loathing of tradition, repetition, and routine
• A tendency to become bored quickly with old things
• A desire, bordering on obsession in some cases, to experience novelty
• A corresponding and related desire to create novelty by creating or achieving something and/or by stirring social or other forms of unrest.

Win32 is not going anywhere, and the continued preference for Win32-only-Windows 7 by average people and businesses alike will cement that reality.

[Dot Matrix]

Win32 (usually referred to by its proxy name, "The Desktop") is not going anywhere soon. It will be a long time, if ever, before WinRT has the rich and time-tested API set that would unthrone it.

People who insist on attaching the buzzword "legacy" to anything that started initial development more than 4 or 5 years ago have no logical reason to do so. This behavior is rooted solely in emotion and seems more like some kind of psychological maneuvering exhibited people with a specific personality type.

That type would be best referred to by the word "Neophile".

From Wikipedia:

• The ability to adapt rapidly to extreme change
• A distaste or downright loathing of tradition, repetition, and routine
• A tendency to become bored quickly with old things
• A desire, bordering on obsession in some cases, to experience novelty
• A corresponding and related desire to create novelty by creating or achieving something and/or by stirring social or other forms of unrest.

Win32 is not going anywhere, and the continued preference for Win32-only-Windows 7 by average people and businesses alike will cement that reality.

Not exactly sure why you're saying there's nothing but emotion at play here. Win32 has been around since the Windows 95 days.

Microsoft's clinging of all this legacy and backwards compatibility isn't doing them much favors anymore. Consumers have largely left the ship, and businesses - well, they're still trying to unfrak themselves after clinging to XP for so long.

If Microsoft can't let go of this, it's going to sink their ship. They'll join IBM on the fringes of the tech market.

[George P Global Moderator]

So they didn't fix this for the RTM (as I suspected). The context menus in the Start Screen should be the modern ones. This is a mess. 3 different context menu styles in a single OS. They really don't pay attention to details, or don't care.

 

I hear that adding the context menus into the start screen was harder than they thought it would be, which is saying something.  As far as looks go, that's probably dead last on the list for this simple update.   One hopes they fix things in 9 and they might, it's a whole new OS team in charge now, basically the WP guys, and they are the ones who think about the details.

 

It's probably a mix of short release schedule and how hard it actually took to implement it in the first place.  If it was a simple thing for them to do they would then have more time to mess with it's looks.

 

If the goal is to have the two better merged then having different context menus at all isn't a option,  having one style on the start screen and one on the desktop isn't consistent either.  They need to pick one and use it in both areas in the next version, if you're using touch and not the mouse then they can just change the default font sizing and spacing to make it more touch friendly, they should still look the same though.

[gohpep]

the awkward attempt to bring the taskbar into the Metro world, aren't improvements at all.

I disagree. Using desktop and metro applications was a pain for me before windows 8.1 spring feature pack. Now I can easily switch between apps in the same place.

 

Also, guys, let's wait until April and see what they in store for us. Maybe they'll even read what Dot Matrix is saying on here, and they'll change it when they release it.

[Dot Matrix]

Also, guys, let's wait until April and see what they in store for us. Maybe they'll even read what Dot Matrix is saying on here, and they'll change it when they release it.

That's not just me saying that now. That blurb was from Ars writer Peter Bright.

[theyarecomingforyou]

This update is simply a quick fix to appease desktop users until Windows 9 arrives. Personally I think it's great that Metro apps now display on the taskbar and the taskbar is accessible from within Metro apps, as that was one of my biggest criticisms of Windows 8. That's not to say that this is a particularly elegant solution, as Metro apps still can't be run in a window, but it's a decent compromise for an update like this.

 

For those calling the desktop a legacy item, I would disagree. The desktop is still the most productive and efficient means of using a desktop computer and Metro apps are too locked down and controlled by Microsoft for it to be a viable alternative. Why should Microsoft get to decide which app are and aren't allowed and take a significant cut of every sale? That's the antithesis of the Windows platform, which has always excelled by being open and adaptable. Metro is great for tablets but in its current iteration it is horrible on the desktop.

 

If Microsoft doesn't continue to develop the desktop or open up the Metro platform then Microsoft is going to have a lot of trouble winning over users. With Valve making a big push into Linux with SteamOS I could very easily seen myself switching, running a multi-partition setup (Linux / Windows 8.1).

[Dot Matrix]

This update is simply a quick fix to appease desktop users until Windows 9 arrives. Personally I think it's great that Metro apps now display on the taskbar and the taskbar is accessible from within Metro apps, as that was one of my biggest criticisms of Windows 8. That's not to say that this is a particularly elegant solution, as Metro apps still can't be run in a window, but it's a decent compromise for an update like this.

 

For those calling the desktop a legacy item, I would disagree. The desktop is still the most productive and efficient means of using a desktop computer and Metro apps are too locked down and controlled by Microsoft for it to be a viable alternative. Why should Microsoft get to decide which app are and aren't allowed and take a significant cut of every sale? That's the antithesis of the Windows platform, which has always excelled by being open and adaptable. Metro is great for tablets but in its current iteration it is horrible on the desktop.

 

If Microsoft doesn't continue to develop the desktop or open up the Metro platform then Microsoft is going to have a lot of trouble winning over users. With Valve making a big push into Linux with SteamOS I could very easily seen myself switching, running a multi-partition setup (Linux / Windows 8.1).

I'm not against Microsoft further developing the desktop, but if Microsoft is to remain relevant in this world, changes need to be made to it. Microsoft's over reliance on it is what got them in trouble in the first place, and running back to it with this latest update isn't going to help them either. You can't make the same calls, and expect different results.

What needs to happen is, the desktop needs updated to streamline it, kill the weeds that have grown in it, and more importantly, it needs to become Metro. It's needs to be incorporated into Metro. Shoehorning Metro into the desktop isn't going to work.

[neo1911]

The right click context menus on modern apps are different in style and colors. This is true Microsoft style. They don't care about consistency. Reminded me of Vista and all it's UI inconsistencies. :P

Modern apps full control in desktop environment will be the highlight of Windows 9. Clear that execs at Microsoft cannot come up with useable UI. It's profit what drives them first. I hope they have learnt their lessons with Windows 8 disaster. I want them to succeed with 9.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Metro is simply not a viable alternative unless Microsoft decides to drop all the draconian restrictions (taking a cut of revenue, requiring it be distributed through the Microsoft Store, requiring apps be run in fullscreen, etc) and substantially improves it for use with mouse and keyboard. I'd much rather see Microsoft shift its focus to developing the desktop, even if that involves legacy breaking changes and an entirely new design scheme. I'm not averse to change but there has to be a clear benefit. Metro is all style and no substance, with no regard for usability for mouse and keyboard users.

 

At the moment Metro is simply a nuisance, with the exception of the Start Screen. That for me is an improvement over the Start Menu as it takes advantage of large, high resolution displays, though there is still substantial room for improvement.