Back to Article

  • kmmatney - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    The ribbon interface + widescreens with low vertical resolution = suck

    And I'm sure this will be forced on you, without an option for smaller toolbars. I guess you can turn off the ribbon altogether, though.
  • qiankun - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    see the little arrow beneath the close button? it will hide the ribbon all together until you click on one of the tab titles Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Yeah, they act sorta like menues still, they are just really wide now instead of tall. I believe if you double click on the heading, they stay visible/hide until you click them. Sorta steep learning curve, but if they enforce consistency, I could see future users having no issues picking them up. Reply
  • RandyN - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    You can always use Ctrl + F1 to hide the ribbon in any MS app. Reply
  • Eidorian - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    It was may concern as well. Using data gathered from usage statistics they learned that the paltry resolution of 1366 x 768 was becoming the standard. For Windows 8 they built Explorer on the expectation of wider screens and low vertical resolutions. The Ribbon is also collapsible. My suggestion is to read the blog link and watch the video. It starts to feel much more natural and they're bringing back some XP level customization.

    It is really interesting how they are integrating their usage statistics for the masses and really trying to cater to the power users as well. You will be at home in the Ribbon or with keyboard shortcuts.
  • S.D.Leary - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    The problem is not the fact that the ribbon can or cannot be hidden, its the fact that the default resolutions have killed vertical real estate. Even if the ribbon can be hidden, when its out, it kills the vertical space, or will probably overlay whats on the screen, reducing the actual amount of work that you can do with it open.

    If MS was smart, they would take the opportunity to place the ribbon vertically, by default on the left side of the screen (though moveable). This would take a little work on their part to make it look right, but it would allow the vertical to be used for the open document.

  • Eidorian - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Talk to the hardware makers on their 16:9 binge. I can manage with 1280 x 800 on my Core 2 notebook. I have 1920 x 1200 on my desk. Reply
  • S.D.Leary - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    I can understand their binge. By utilizing only one aspect ratio they can choose to use common size substrates (master "glass" sheets) if they want. I don't know that they do, but thats one of their arguments.

  • Eidorian - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    16:9 is the new panel ratio. It works for TV and computer displays. I can understand where manufacturers and hardware vendors are coming from for the sake of production simplicity.

    I still prefer 16:10 though. I hope to get 1600 x 900 in my next notebook. Not my preferred but still an improvement over 1280 x 800.
  • sigmatau - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Yes, yes, it is saving them tons of money and forcing the consumer to take a step back in terms of what they are getting for their money. Imagine standard tube tvs replacing HD LCD tvs. Almost the same to me.

    Answer this.... why did they go with glossy vs matte?

    Even a more bizzare question: why are almost all computer monitors where you can control the enviromental lighting to prevent reflections made with matte screens while laptops are used in so many places where you can't control the lighting?
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Glossy is marginally brighter than matte; and in excessively overlit areas (ie 99% of boxmarts) brightness is the single biggest determiner in how good a screen looks. Reply
  • tayb - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    So you prefer covering up information via a dropdown as opposed to just pushing the information down, while still visible, by expanding the ribbon? Oh the horror. Reply
  • B3an - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Why dont you read the MS blog post before commenting?? This is the whole purpose of these posts, to inform people like yourself that always moan about things they know nothing about and then assume stuff that isnt true.

    MS have removed the "details" pane at the bottom of explorer. So even with the ribbon open you still have the same vertical space to view files. Infact you have slightly MORE space, you can fit two more file lines in. With the ribbon collapsed you get way more vertical space.

    The details pane has been moved to the right and is now vertical. In many screenshots the details pane does not appear though, so i suspect it disappears when the ribbon is opened or or something else. Either way it will nicely fill the big empty white space to the right side of Explorer that appears on widescreens. Things have been clearly improved.
  • Arnulf - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    If customers were smart they never would have jumped on the widescreen bandwagon, the fad would simply die and you'd still have comparatively larger real estate screens today.

    It has become a real pain to find a 4:3 (or 5:4) monitor as of lately :(
  • UMADBRO - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    4.3 and 5.4 aspect ratio monitors need to go die in a fire. Widescree or bust! UMAD? Reply
  • dcollins - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Read the blog post before complaining. The new explorer actually uses less vertical space than the explorer in Windows 7 (two extra files for the same resolution). They compensated for the extra pixels used by the ribbon by moving the details pane from the bottom of the window to the right. Reply
  • mino - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    Except some are comparing to the explorer which they consider the "useable" version - i.e. the NT 5.x one.

    As a sidenote, people complaining about vertical estate were most likely not using the details pane in the first place.
  • sigmatau - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    This is so dumb (not your comment but the idea that people are being forced to use 1366 x768). I really can't believe how horrible this has become. I have to read service manuals with a laptop on the field and it is a complete nightmare.

    You know what's really crazy? Lenovo did a survey about 3 years ago about what screen their customers wanted; matte or glossy. Guess which one got 86% of the vote? It sure in hell wasn't the glossy POS. 8% voted for glossy while the remaining 6% didn't care.

    So how in the world did we go from 86%+ not wanting a glossy crap screen to Lenovo not offering one matte screen in their consumer lineup?

    Cost anyone?
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Why we've got glossy:

    1. Consumers buy it.
    2. With glossy manufacturers can extract somewhat saturated colors from cheaper panels - cost down.
  • sigmatau - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    OK, so what are the reason to have a glossy screen? You haven't said anything I haven't already: it all has to do with saving the cheap ass manufacturer some pennies. Reply
  • tayb - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Whine less. Press the little arrow and it will be minimized until you need it again just like how it is implemented everywhere else. Sorry you are stuck in 2001 and addicted to dropdown menus. The rest of us appreciate the highly customizable and easily accessed ribbon.

    The only thing I wish I saw but I don't was tabbed explorer windows. It's so outdated to have to open an entire new explorer window when it could and should be a tab.
  • frozentundra123456 - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Sorry, I have to disagree with you. I absolutely hate the ribbon interface in Office. And I know from reading a lot of posts on the internet that I am not the only one that feels that way. You know it must be obtuse when Microsoft has to set up a program on their website to direct users of the ribbon where to find commands that used to be clearly visible.

    For instance, in Excel 2010, you have to click print, print preview, and then find the little line that says page setup to format a page. With drop down menus, all you had to do was click file, and the page set up command instantly appeared.
    This is progress?? I dont see it. And Excel 2007 was even worse. All the major commands were hidden until the clicked the stupid looking circular thing. WHY???

    And I am not stuck in 2001. I just do not like change that makes things more complicated to do the same basic commands. And speaking of "easily accessible", how is the ribbon easier than just a drop down menu that displays the command. Microsoft seems to be hung up on making every command be represented by some sort of icon rather than a written command.
  • Assimilator87 - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    I have something called an adjustable stand, which happened to come with my Dell U2211H, but is sold separately as well. It has this neat feature where you can rotate it. That gives me 1920 pixels of vertical space. I think they call it portrait mode. Reply
  • cicatriz63 - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Or you could also learn to use the new menu instead of complaining about things and not having a clue. If you click on Page Layout tab in Excel 2010 you will see a section called *gasp* Page Setup that has nearly every single option in the Page Setup dialog, at the top of the page instead of in dialog box obstructing your view of the document. And if the option you want isn't listed there then you click the little arrow in the bottom right of the section and the actual Page Setup dialog will open.

    So how is clicking File-Page setup faster than clicking on Page Layout and then the option you want again?

    And when the Ribbon is minimized it actually takes up LESS vertical space then a standard menu that if you click is expanded down 700 pixels with 100 different menu items.
  • mino - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    Simple, at the time of O2003 and OOO1, I thought: thank god for o2003 compared to that starcrap mess.

    Scroll further 5 yrs: Thank god for that LO 3.4 barely-office97-class-useable for saving me from that o2007/2010 abomination.

    I have tried, really tried to use o2007+, there are great many features I miss on LO.

    BUT, they are just not worth consistently warring the market-leading productivity eliminator from MS: The Ribbon.

    Hell, even Lotus Notes is more useable, had it not crashe more often than Opera 5 on 2010 flash :D
  • zero2dash - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    eom Reply
  • hotnikkelz - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    The vertical space here is SMALLER than the vertical space in current windows 7. I suggest you read the following for more details.
  • B3an - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    What? I suggest you READ that post. If you cant do that properly then they even have a picture to show you that Win 8 has more vertical space than Win 7. Reply
  • snarfbot - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    it looks really messy. why not it call it file manager instead? because thats what it resembles, win 3.1 file manager. Reply
  • mino - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    Do not insult Windows 3.1 file manager.

    Managed to make that thing collaborate in under an hour back in the time.

    Know the fun part? File manager was MORE customizeable that W8 Exploder looks to become ...
  • gevorg - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    I hope there will be an option to display ribbon using small icons without text labels. Otherwise I will switch to some Explorer alternative. Reply
  • yelped - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    There is. Check out the blog post. The part with Alex's custom view. Reply
  • bh192012 - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    I hope there will be an option to display ribbon using text only without small icons. Otherwise I will not have any idea what the squiggly square with the other squares in it means. Perhaps they could organize them under common groups. I suggest: File, Edit, Tools and Help. Reply
  • fhaddad78 - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Don't bicker and complain about it until you see it in full effect in Windows 8. Microsoft is not a stupid company, they are aware of default resolutions and aspect ratios and it's all being considered. The final product will be sweet. Microsoft has done a 180 in terms of what they are producing. Reply
  • prophet001 - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    I agree that we should wait and see.

    However, Microsoft not a stupid company? One word... Vista
  • B3an - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Nothing was that wrong with Vista, dont be such a sheep. It was the companies that made drivers and software for Vista that caused all the major problems, and manufacturers installing Vista on poor hardware. Then theres Nvidias drivers that constantly crashed for the first 6 months. Reply
  • PhoenixEnigma - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    Disagree. I use Vista, XP, and Win7 on a daily basis, and despite Vista being on the best hardware stability-wise (ThinkPad), seeing less intensive use, and having fewer programs installed, it is less stable (and more annoying to work with) than the other two combined.

    Vista was a flop - MS seems to nail good OS's every other time (98->XP-7), so it's nothing new, and I'd not be surprised to see Win8 continue the pattern.
  • SmCaudata - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    There are some really nice features that I feel most users here will use. You can minimize the ribbon and then add any shortcut you want to a Quick Access Toolbar. This acts a lot like the quick launch icons on the start bar now. They don't have text and are small.

    For me this means that I will continues to use shortcut keys and context menus for 99% of my explorer needs. Then when I need to do things like email a file I can have a quick access button since I will always forget that shortcut key.

    I'm looking forward to this.
  • ComputerNovice22 - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    Truthfully I have always hated and probably always will hate the "ribbon" interface... I tried getting used to it when I first started using office 2007 at work and I hated it then and I still currently hate it. Using it on a system that is set to a lower resolution totally SUCKS... Reply
  • Azsen - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    If anything the menu down the left is a complete waste of time for me. Who seriously stores their files in Libraries -> Documents/Videos/Pictures etc? Some of us probably have massive secondary hard drives and store them in D:\Stuff\Movies etc. I hate how Windows always thinks you should store your important stuff on the C drive in their special directories. I've learned since Windows XP never to put your files there in case your Windows partition gets corrupted and you have to format over it. If you could easily customise that menu down the left that would be great, but I don't know how without some registry hacking I guess. Reply
  • Impulses - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    You can add your own directories to the libraries y'know... Reply
  • MarcLeFou - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    And you can even change the default location of the documents/music/video folders to another HDD ... Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - link

    99% of people that complain about things in Windows Vista/7 are always idiots. Nearly all the time, as demonstrated above, the problem can easily be resolved. Infact in most cases it's clearly improved but the user often dont even try and look in to getting around a problem before complaining. Reply
  • Azsen - Monday, August 29, 2011 - link

    The favourites icon is also a waste of time, who still uses Internet Explorer? If you could customise it to look at Firefox or Chrome bookmarks maybe it would be handy, but I think it could be removed altogether. Reply
  • Hector2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - link

    If you don't like the ribbon, just right-click on it and minimize it -- it'll stay minimized. Overall, it's a plus anyway. Move on and complain about something worthwhile. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now