So, Microsoft are releasing, both as a free upgrade to Windows 8, and as a standalone operating system in it's own right, the snappily name 'Windows 8.1' (a little misleading since it's still Windows NT 6.2), a free to download preview version of which is now available.
Microsoft seemed to have acknowledged the widespread condemnation and unpopularity of Metro/Modern UI/whatever they're calling it this week, and so have tweaked the OS to address those concerns...although anyone hoping for the simplest fix - just providing a classic Windows 7-like mode without having to deal with Metro - will be disappointed. The changes are:
* There is now the option to boot directly to the classic desktop rather than to the start screen.
* The start button is back on the classic desktop (but not the start menu itself)
* Right clicking the start button provides an 'advanced' menu which gives access to shutdown options and administrative tools directly from the classic desktop
* The start screen and lock screen can now be set to use the desktop wallpaper to provide a less jarring transition between the metro and classic interfaces (note: 'use the desktop wallpaper' not 'overlayed onto the desktop')
* The start screen itself is now more configurable, allowing for smaller tiles to fit more on and a greater number of view settings.
* If you are fortunate enough to run at a screen resolution which Microsoft deems large enough to permit the use of...TWO...metro apps AT ONCE, you can now resize the amount of screen real estate sharing between the two apps rather than it being a fixed one third/two third split, and in addition if you have a particularly large screen you may now rather generously be permitted to have FOUR applications on screen ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!. Naturally, metro continues to only support multiple apps in a tiled mode that hasn't seen the light of day since Windows 1 from 1985, being able to overlap to get more on the screen (which was introduced in 1987 with Windows 2.0 and reigned supreme for 25 years until Windows 8 was released) is still apparently too much to ask from metro. Oh...and just as before you are out of luck if you're using a 4:3 display, it'll be 1 full screen app only. The classic desktop of course still allows for numerous windows, all independently sizeable and which can be overlapped on any display.
* The start screen search function now actually searches for things on the computer, rather than just searches for apps.
...and that's about it. Most of the changes seem centred around making the classic interface a bit more connected to the metro interface (clearly in response to those who hate it) but it falls way short of what those people want. There is still no start menu for those who want it, the metro interface is still some bizarre watered down homage to Windows 1.0 (seriously, Google some screenshots of WIndows 1 - Metro is basically a modern day reimagining of that interface rather than an evolution of anything modern) and there are still insane kludges like the presence of two different versions of Internet Explorer, one for each interface.
It would seem with Windows 8.1, Microsoft have listened to the criticisms levelled at Windows 8 but have fallen far short of dealing with them.
'Windows 8.1'
Annoyingly the preview doesn't work on Windows 8 installs in English that aren't 'English (US)', so I can't try it on my laptop.
The reason the OS major version hasn't increased is the same as many of the slightly odd decisions Microsoft has made - application compatibility. It's unlikely there will ever be a version of Windows released again with a major version other than 6 - not because the OS will never change, but because it doesn't need to and changing it just breaks stuff. See also Firefox plug in compatibility when they started changing their major version with every slight change to the rendering engine.cwathen wrote:So, Microsoft are releasing, both as a free upgrade to Windows 8, and as a standalone operating system in it's own right, the snappily name 'Windows 8.1' (a little misleading since it's still Windows NT 6.2)
Many applications happily run the same code across XP/Vista/7/8 even though XP's internal version number is NT 5.1 - not in the 6.x range at all, yet this same code will not run on Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) even though it's only '0.1' behind XP.The reason the OS major version hasn't increased is the same as many of the slightly odd decisions Microsoft has made - application compatibility. It's unlikely there will ever be a version of Windows released again with a major version other than 6 - not because the OS will never change, but because it doesn't need to and changing it just breaks stuff. See also Firefox plug in compatibility when they started changing their major version with every slight change to the rendering engine.
Exactly - the windows major version number has nothing to do these days with it's API support / subsystem availability.cwathen wrote:Many applications happily run the same code across XP/Vista/7/8 even though XP's internal version number is NT 5.1 - not in the 6.x range at all, yet this same code will not run on Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) even though it's only '0.1' behind XP.The reason the OS major version hasn't increased is the same as many of the slightly odd decisions Microsoft has made - application compatibility. It's unlikely there will ever be a version of Windows released again with a major version other than 6 - not because the OS will never change, but because it doesn't need to and changing it just breaks stuff. See also Firefox plug in compatibility when they started changing their major version with every slight change to the rendering engine.
I thought you said you didn't see them moving the version number out of 6.x because of compatibility issues?Exactly - the windows major version number has nothing to do these days with it's API support / subsystem availability.
The point I was trying to make (which was only an aside) is that it's a bit odd having 'version 8.1' which is internally version 6.2. Version numbers haven't been used for some time to brand the product, with Windows going down the road of having brands to identify the versions rather than numbers - we've had 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP and Vista.
'7' and '8' were odd names since no matter how you look at it, you've got to have some (very) faulty history to make 7 and 8 synonymous with being versions 7 and 8 of Windows, but it could still could be argued that they are sort of brands in that they were just a single number.
But now they have actually have a product officially called 'Windows 8.1'. There is no way that can be argued to be a brand-named version of windows as a way of avoiding a differing internal version number, '8.1' *is* a version number...except it's not because it's still NT 6.2!
Only Microsoft could come up with madness like this!
Meh. I'll still be sticking with Windows 7 as I presume most will.
So what would you have them call it instead then?cwathen wrote:But now they have actually have a product officially called 'Windows 8.1'. There is no way that can be argued to be a brand-named version of windows as a way of avoiding a differing internal version number, '8.1' *is* a version number...except it's not because it's still NT 6.2!
Only Microsoft could come up with madness like this!
I have the misfortune of having to use a Windows 8 laptop at work. Truly awful user experience. I normally find it quite easy to use new operating systems but Windows 8 makes the most simple tasks unnecessarily and bizarrely complex. Even shutting it down is particularly difficult. As far as I can see the fastest way of doing this is going into the dreadful start menu, navigating all the way to the right and then swiping quickly up and down on the touch pad before it decides that you have put enough work into this task thereby earning you the honour of seeing that side bit that appears when it wants to. Only then can you choose to shut down the machine but IIRC even that is hidden under the settings button.
My only experience with Windows 8 has been a brief play with a friend's laptop, and it wasn't pleasant. While I can't imagine ever considering the Metro experience a primary way of using a pooter, I can also accept I'm a bit odd, so wasn't against its existence per se. What I wasn't prepared for is just how shoddy the execution is.
For a start: UI elements either appearing at random, or not when you try to evoke them. I expect this gets better with a bit of experience but that seems to fly in the face of the whole 'gestures! gestures!' thing. These 'swipe from side of trackpad' ones are particularly awful. The obscurity of shutting down has already been mentioned. My friend challenged me to figure out how to close an app without alt+f4. That was a fun voyage of discovery.
I'm not au fait with the development environment for Windows 8 but the absolute weakest point for me is that the entire Metro ecosystem *feels* like a webpage. I don't know if Metro apps are actually built on HTML/JS to make them more dev-friendly, but I could've believed I was using IE in kiosk mode, with the crappy text rendering, clunky scrolling, and app elements rendering in place. Nothing feels native, and maybe that's just the sort of thing that puts me off as a developer, but ultimately it comes back to 'this is a thing made for people who aren't me'.
For a start: UI elements either appearing at random, or not when you try to evoke them. I expect this gets better with a bit of experience but that seems to fly in the face of the whole 'gestures! gestures!' thing. These 'swipe from side of trackpad' ones are particularly awful. The obscurity of shutting down has already been mentioned. My friend challenged me to figure out how to close an app without alt+f4. That was a fun voyage of discovery.
I'm not au fait with the development environment for Windows 8 but the absolute weakest point for me is that the entire Metro ecosystem *feels* like a webpage. I don't know if Metro apps are actually built on HTML/JS to make them more dev-friendly, but I could've believed I was using IE in kiosk mode, with the crappy text rendering, clunky scrolling, and app elements rendering in place. Nothing feels native, and maybe that's just the sort of thing that puts me off as a developer, but ultimately it comes back to 'this is a thing made for people who aren't me'.