Gabe Newell: Windows 8 is a 'catastrophe' for PC biz

[White Haven]

The child and startup processes are the only new parts, but those ARE quite nice new parts from a troubleshooting perspective. Drive access has been available since at least XP, you just need to add the columns.

[Tolya]

Newell is an idiot. If he spent more less time listening to people whining about win 8 (and metro, specifically), and more time actually using the damn thing, he would know that metro isn't bad, it's just different. And after seeing some win7 anti-metroists use the damn thing for a couple of days and finally coming out with "it's not that bad, really".

Besides, I really can't see how win8 will hurt the OEM market. It is basically a win7 with some tweaks (which should be ported over to win7, because damn, win8 is FAST) and also there is nothing stopping you from buying Win 7 - just like people preferred to stay on XP when Vista turned out to be a disappointment.

[xthetenth]

The child and startup processes are the only new parts, but those ARE quite nice new parts from a troubleshooting perspective. Drive access has been available since at least XP, you just need to add the columns.

I think the networking display is much better handled, with a much better grasp of what the actual maximum you're dealing with is. Also, the presentation is better, with the graphs having filled in sections rather than a line approximately the same size and color as the axes and scale lines. It's one of those things where the presentation makes it a lot easier to notice information that was there but not easy to notice, and for the defaults to show more information without feeling crowded.

I also find the talk of how PC OEMs are somehow going to be forced to make ARM based computers/tablets/whatever bizarre. They get more options and one of those is keep building their familiar x86 computers.

[Starglider]

Metro works fairly well as a quick admin interface in Windows Server 2012; it's a bit smoother and more pleasant, although you still have to drop into the old control panel and clunky stand-alone utils for some config (in the release candidate at least). I look forward to using it on a Win8 tablet, but for a conventional desktop it strikes me as an annoyingly clunky start menu. Haven't used it as a serious desktop machine yet though.

[CaptHawkeye]

Newell is an idiot. If he spent more less time listening to people whining about win 8 (and metro, specifically), and more time actually using the damn thing, he would know that metro isn't bad, it's just different. And after seeing some win7 anti-metroists use the damn thing for a couple of days and finally coming out with "it's not that bad, really".

Besides, I really can't see how win8 will hurt the OEM market. It is basically a win7 with some tweaks (which should be ported over to win7, because damn, win8 is FAST) and also there is nothing stopping you from buying Win 7 - just like people preferred to stay on XP when Vista turned out to be a disappointment.

This isn't the first time Newell has postulated slippery slope bullshit about the PC game market that his own business has proven otherwise against. He's just endemic of a problem afflicting the video game industry these days. IE: The market's opinions and development being centered around the opinions of a few talking heads AKA: big names in the industry.

[Executor32]

I've tried Windows 8, and I really don't like it. Some things are better, like the drastically reduced boot time (even in a virtual machine, using half my CPU cores and only 1/4 of my RAM, it boots faster than Win7 does on my actual machine), the additions to the task manager, and the Ribbon in Explorer, but the 'hot corners' are unintuitive to me, and trying to use Metro with a mouse is just clunky. I have a 24" monitor, so when I open the Start screen the tiles are over an inch tall. It's an enormous waste of space, in my opinion. Sure, there's pretty widgets and all that shit, but I already have all the information they provide through Chrome extensions, which I already run almost constantly. It's already only a click away, so I don't need it in my Start menu, too.

Don't get me wrong, it's fucking fantastic on a touchscreen. I just feel they should have made it optional for desktop users. Windows already detects whether you have pen or touch input on your display, it should have been trivial to use that to make Metro the default interface for such devices, and the desktop/Start menu the default for everything else, with the user able to manually select either if desired. I'll be giving Windows 8 a pass and waiting for Windows 9, unless something comes out that I need or want which absolutely requires it.

[bilateralrope]

Surely you don't thi k Valve should ignore every competitor that isn't about to totally destroy Steam RIGHT NOW

Of course not. I just don't think it should be assumed that OS integration is going to be some sort of insurmountable advantage that Steam (and Origin, and the other services) are going to have no form of defence against in the long-term. Being bundled with Windows helped Internet Explorer dominate the browser wars, certainly, but it didn't help MSN a whole lot during the time when it was actually an ISP.

Bundling IE with windows caused MS to lose two antitrust lawsuits. Including one that MS recently admitted that it hasn't been complying with the judgement the EU courts handed out.

I can't see how Microsoft can avoid similar antitrust issues if they build their own store into Windows 8.

[Stark]

Surely you don't thi k Valve should ignore every competitor that isn't about to totally destroy Steam RIGHT NOW

Of course not. I just don't think it should be assumed that OS integration is going to be some sort of insurmountable advantage that Steam (and Origin, and the other services) are going to have no form of defence against in the long-term. Being bundled with Windows helped Internet Explorer dominate the browser wars, certainly, but it didn't help MSN a whole lot during the time when it was actually an ISP.

That's nice, since nobody is saying that 'OS integration is going to be some sort of insurmountable advantage that Steam are going to have no form of defence against in the long-term'. You snipped my post where I suggested that it's pretty obvious Valve would be concerned about any new competitor at all, and would be motivated to - say - spew any line of stupid bullshit to pull the rug out from under it to protect revenues.

They're probably more aware than most idiot users that if another service gets a huge base of locked in users (either through HL2 or the OS) and can trap them for years of testing, they might end up in a position to impact Valve's bottom line. In business, that would be literally all the is required for them to start to seed fear, uncertainty, and doubt ... and Win8 is already a huge target because of the hate and fear change traditionally engenders in the extremely fat.

But seriously, you said people 'won't be in a hurry to drop' their Steam library that they are not required to 'drop' in any way for the MS service to be a success, so....

[bilateralrope]

Someone from Blizzard is jumping on the bandwagon

Blizzard exec echoes 'Windows 8 catastrophe' comments
Game design boss at the Diablo 3 studio supports Newell's observations

By Rob Crossley for CVG UK

A key executive at Blizzard Entertainment has personally endorsed Gabe Newell's claim that Windows 8 "is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space".

Rob Pardo, the executive vice president of game design at the Diablo 3 studio, quoted Newell's comments on his personal twitter account before adding that Windows 8 is "not awesome for Blizzard either".

Discussion on the value of Windows 8 has hitherto been relatively quiet among games designers. Yet Newell, the co-founder of Valve Software, sparked debate on the subject by describing Windows 8 as "a catastrophe".

It appears that his claims were centred on criticisms that that Microsoft will want to have more control over various applications and purchases made through its next operating system. The full details have not yet been announced by Microsoft.

"There's a strong temptation to close the platform," Newell said, "because they look at what they can accomplish when they limit the competitors' access to the platform, and they say, 'That's really exciting.'"

This appears to reference to the Windows Store in the Microsoft operating system, which could restrict companies' options to sell their software directly. Microsoft will take a 30 per cent royalty cut of every sale made through this store.

Looking at both articles, the parts they are worried about aren't how well Windows 8 runs. It's that bundling a store into windows gives MS a major advantage they can't fight, and worries that MS might try to block software that isn't sold through the MS store.

[Stark]

It explicitly says they're afraid MS will prevent other stores from working, to 'close' the platform.

That seems like entirely baseless fantasy to me.

[bilateralrope]

It explicitly says they're afraid MS will prevent other stores from working, to 'close' the platform.

That seems like entirely baseless fantasy to me.

Agreed. I can't see the EU courts liking MS building their own store into windows. Blocking other programs from running is just going to get them angrier.

[atg]

The industry is moving to a more closed model though, and Microsoft aren't the only ones doing it. It'd be hard for the EU to punish Microsoft for making an app store to be the only way to get Windows apps when OSX/iOS/Android have already been heading down that path and for longer too.

[Vendetta]

The industry is moving to a more closed model though, and Microsoft aren't the only ones doing it. It'd be hard for the EU to punish Microsoft for making an app store to be the only way to get Windows apps when OSX/iOS/Android have already been heading down that path and for longer too.

Except the marketplace totally won't be the only way to get apps whilst personal computers are in any way recognisable as what they are today. Microsoft might make Office exclusive to it (but probably not, because a marketplace will be literally the first thing that gets turned off by any enterprise installation of Windows, and that's the primary market for Office), but that's all.

[Stark]

It's pretty funny that fatass making shit up already has people parroting it as fact. What's more likely; a complete transformation of he PC market to a single MS controlled store we'd all hate because Gabe Fatty says so, or that it'll be like the Mac app store which is simply another market?

I mean, putting aside that we are all slaves to Valve's platform already and hate and fear what we're told.

[bilateralrope]

The industry is moving to a more closed model though, and Microsoft aren't the only ones doing it. It'd be hard for the EU to punish Microsoft for making an app store to be the only way to get Windows apps when OSX/iOS/Android have already been heading down that path and for longer too.

The EU wasn't happy with Microsoft having IE installed with Windows, while other browsers had to be installed later, so they ordered MS to give windows users a choice of browsers, in a random order, the first time they booted up Windows. If they are to be consistent, then they will be very unhappy with MS going a step further and hindering the installation of programs that MS doesn't like.

As for OSX/iOS/Android, I'm not aware of anyone complaining about their app stores in court. So there are no rulings the EU courts will need to be consistent with.

[Tribun]

I think the whole Metro idiocy is just the first step:

First introduce this "ulta-kewl" surface where of course only stuff from MS store can be installed - after all they tell you it's for security. Then wait until the base is big enough before you completely remove the desktop in a future OS version, thus eliminating all sideloading and even direct file access, also introduce an "update" that castrates OS that already have Metro to do so as well. Sure, there will be lawsuits up the ass but by the time there's a decision the damage can't be undone.

OK, that's REALLY pessimistic and I make no bones I think Win 8 is a piece of shit, but it's only the logical conclusion of the crap that Apple's already pulling.

Btw. I noticed as well. Metro is completely useless for anything but direct consumation of media. Anything that goes above that is either horribly clunky and awkward to handle or they didn't even bother, probably gave up trying and send you straight to the desktop.

[Edi]

Attention, Tribun! This is Officer Edi of the Moderator Corps! You have been caught red-handed in the peddling of conspiracy theories and baseless doomsday prophecies! Put down the crack pipe, take off the tinfoil hat and place your hands on top of your head! You are under arrest for crimes against the G&C forum!



Okay, to be serious for a moment, that stuff IS straight out conspiracy theory. The Windows 8 default user interface (Metro) is designed for touch screen devices, meaning smartphones and tablets. The classic desktop environment is still there and works like any application. It can, AFAIK, also be turned into the default interface. The Metro interface can also be turned off entirely, though IIRC at present it requires some work.

One of the things that MS is going to have to take into account with the new OS and its established PC user base is that people in general dislike change. They especially dislike changes to basic things like the user interface, unless the changes are clear, easy to assimilate and do not radically alter what they are used to. For this reason the change from XP interface to Vista and Win7 wasn't a big step and didn't cause a lot of fuss and especially in 7 it's an improvement in many small but important respects.

The change from the classic UI to the Metro on the desktop and laptop is a whole different kettle of fish, because it requires the users to unlearn several years to decades worth of established use habits and learn entirely new ones. I can already hear the howls of outrage from the customers I help daily echoing back from the future. And these aren't fatty nerds but regular people who are generally not all that computer savvy at all.

So in this respect I expect there to be a fairly large backlash against Microsoft and a lot of complaints about the new UI. I hope that they will make it an installation feature to allow users to choose either the Metro or the classic UI as the default interface for this reason.

As for eliminating all access to everything but the shiny new interface, I don't really see that happening. The enterprise market is not going to stand for that in the least and large parts of the consumer market are also going to be rather ticked off if such should happen.

[Stark]

Making a UI change optional largely defeats the intention. It's good that the new UI can be turned off, but the level of difficulty doesn't interest me at all. If it was easy, and the new UI was a quantum leap in usability and accessibility, it wouldn't matter because none of the herd would ever use it and we'd end up using the fucking start menu in the year five thousand.

Nerds hate and fear change; that's why you have to force it. Look how long it took pretty much the entire less-than-100kg population to get over the ribbon-hatred (maybe six months tops) and how much better Office is to use post nerd anxiety attack. Hilariously, what I've seen of Metro suggests that the bulk of the market (ie, mum and dad, kids, people who actually paid for Windows, etc) will find it easy to learn.

If we listened to those too stupid to learn, we'd still be using the Program Manager.

[Edi]

It's not just nerds who dislike change, regular people are just as bad, if not worse, in that regard. It's more about unlearning habits that have often become so deep as to be muscle memory. That is what people hate, unless the new UI substantially improves things for them.

With regard to the Office ribbon change, when you look at the population as a whole and then look at how much they use it, it is fairly easy to see why the home use crowd got over it. Their use of the program is so infrequent that they never did bother to learn much of the UI in the first place, because the stuff they generally needed (font changes and styles etc) were already tool buttons on the old toolbar and those just got rearranged in the new ribbon. These people would have been hunting around for the correct functions in the old UI and are probably doing so in the new UI just as often, because they have no stake in learning it in the first place. The number of people who use Office in their work and still plod along like complete beginners even after long exposure (to whichever UI) is surprisingly large.

For power users who had learned the old UI and knew exactly where everything was, needing to relearn that all is a very understandable cause for anger. This, incidentally, is the reason why we still use the qwerty keyboard layout, which was originally designed to make typing as slow as possible. It would be possible to rearrange the keyboard layout for much faster typing, because jamming a mechanical typewriter by too quick keypresses is not an issue in the computer age, but good luck trying to push that one through since the current layout is in every user's muscle memory and would have to be unlearned as the new layout was learned.

No question that for those who just want their internet, email, music, photo album and Facebook the new Metro interface is going to be easy to learn. If the new UI also has just as easy access to settings via a tile, all that much better.

But pretending that it is going to be nothing but an unalloyed good that the UI changes that radically is just as stupid as rejecting any change. There is going to be no end of grief for it, since the transition period to Windows 8 is not going to be a few months, it's going to be several years since people usually try to stick with their old machines as long as they can before necessity forces them to upgrade. Then when they do upgrade, everything changes all at once and shit hits the fan because it's almost like they have to learn everything from the beginning because things aren't exactly or almost exactly where they used to be. Eventually they will learn, but most of them will resent every moment of it.

[Stark]

The Office example is a good one for 'regular' people, because it did meet a lot of resistance across the board. Looking back, it's actually pretty impressive how rapidly such a massive change was accepted, or even at it was accepted at all. But if developers just listened to the woe is me learning is hard crowd, the whole world would have missed out on the benefits because some fifty year old women weren't retrained properly.

People being angry and resistant to change is arguably normal; people sticking sir heads in the sand and refusi flat out to re-skill simply on principle is definitely deplorable. Managing change like this (especially in the corporate area with low skill but high familiarity) is an industry exactly because change is necessary but people are fucking stupid and will pretty much always resist it if it requires any effort.

Frankly, I'm not Microsoft so I don't have to worry about managing the change. It's just clear that avoiding growth or improvement just because it upsets the end user is fucking retarded, and if the Win8 interface is better or even has good ideas, I hope it succeeds regardless of how many overweight cretins it terrifies. To be honest, outside the corporate space where I agree that it would take years or decades to change anything, I think that once people actually sit down with it the attitude will change, because talking about shit like this on the Internet is 90% nerd chic idiots repeating the cool line on OMG MICROSOFTZZZ.

Out of interest, did you get any experience with the Office ribbon change and how it was presented to corp users and how successful the uptake was? I changed jobs around the time it was released from an orga ideation planning to introduce it to one that already had, so I missed it. These days literally nobody seems to use the 2003 interface anymore.

[Edi]

We just had the program upgraded, with little or no instruction at all. I think there may have been a powerpoint presentation or something that got sent by email to everyone, but in general it was "Here's your new version of the program with a completely rearranged UI, now sink or swim with it".

At least that's the way it was in my department (the helpdesk), because we primarily use other tools and systems. Don't know what people in other departments got. We still have a mix of Office 2003 to 2010 in the company and everyone uses whichever one they've got. The old ones get phased out as the lease times on the machines end and they get replaced.

It may well have been the same in many other places too, and my employer is a very big company when talking on the scale of Finland.

I don't know how many people like the new interface. My main irritation with it is that if I need certain functions in quick succession. I need to first change ribbon tabs, then select whatever function I need, pick the options I want if there is a submenu, then go back to what I was doing and then do the same song and dance all over again a few moments later. With old UI I could access all the menus from the menu bar, thus skipping the annoying back and forth that is required with the ribbon UI.

Some of the button arrangements in the ribbon UI are superior to the old UI, but not all of them. I also have the irritation of mostly dealing with the Finnish localization of Office, so when I need some function (especially if it's a more obscure one), I first need to figure out what the Finnish name for it is, then try and guess where it should be located. Especially if all the instructions I have are in English.

[Stark]

In localizations, are the groups or tabs reorganised, or just renamed? I still have no idea where everything is, but user generally don't; as you said before, they've got their routines and methods, and aren't concerned with the other 900 functions.

[Edi]

Just renamed, but since the tabs themselves are partially reorganized differently than the old menus, it becomes a major pain in the ass to find out what is where, more so if it's rarely needed. And the translated names can sometimes be obscure in and of themselves, so that it is very, very unintuitive. This is more a problem with localizations of non-Germanic (or non-Indo-European) languages. Since Finnish is a Finno-Ugric language rather than Indo-European, I get to take that problem right on the chin.

And due to the nature of my work, I need to be able to swiftly and efficiently instruct users on where to find all the obscure shit that I don't even need myself. Thankfully those cases don't happen too often and I can usually use a remote connection to access their machine and show them. If I can't, it heavily depends on the skill level of the user in question whether helping them is at all possible.

I don't have anything against UI changes in principle, as long as they improve things and don't bury important stuff someplace difficult to find, but I've seen enough UI that was massively stupid from the get-go and UI changes that didn't help any or even made things worse in some cases that I am not going to accept any UI changes without reservations. Every time a UI in some common program changes, I need to learn it as fast as possible in order to be able to do my job and then I hear no end of it from the end users (some of who couldn't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, never mind operate a computer).

[Stark]

You mean like how Vista rearranged a bunch of moderate use functions in totally different ways with different relationships? I think it's possible to say that some things like that (like the Win7 arrangement of networking options) are arguably just bad.

[Zaune]

I can't speak for nerds as a collective entity, much less normal people, but I personally don't have a problem with change per se. What I have a problem with is change for no apparent purpose; there were next to no complaints about the switch to Windows 95's UI, for example, because that was a genuine improvement once you got used to it. Can you say the same for the Ribbon?