Unfair Comparison of Windows Explorer
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
The way I "see" it (nice screen shot comparison BTW) is that as the staff at MicroSoft get older they nedd everything to be bigger so they can still see them. Or it's more that everyone has bigger monitors at higher resolutions so for the items to appear the same size, the spacing is larger to make them easier to see. I'm probably wrong... :rolleyes:
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
You must understand that Windows 8 isn't about managing files. It's about updating your status on facebook, sharing photos, and downloading MP3's.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
I agree 100%, more if it were possible.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
snorkie wrote:
I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen.
I can. Trying to use MS Office products on a netbook with the ribbon open is terrible, especially when another half of the screen is a big ad...(its the free version because I'm too cheap to get real MS Office)
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
Your "comparison" is not quite fair. If you line up the files area in each of the "versions" then you will see that the # of files is either the same in Win8 or slightly more. Make sure to display the explorer windows full screen with a lot of files so that the list is "full". I think you'll find you haven't lost anything.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
Thanks for the explorer comparison. When I think of people I know who have used Windows for a while it does not surprise me what has happened. My father started using computers back in the early 1980's, in his work, before Windows came out, then he progressed onto windows. Nowadys he still struggles with cutting and pasting, resizing images, the internet and I know of others I know who have similar difficulties. As someone who has had grown up with an interest in computers and IT in and of itself - I have always tried to make it a point of understanding how the system works as well as how I can get the most out of it(not always successfully). Microsoft have basically decided that instead of pulling the users forward by serving them real ale they are going to serve the users milk. So what I am trying to get at is that Microsoft are not marketting their operating systems towards the likes of us - but towards the generallly IT illiterate population - the dream of everyone being IT literate is just not going to happen and I think that as long as money can be made Microsoft will have no interest in progress - only a dumbing down...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
snorkie wrote:
It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work!
I think you're not looking at the entire picture. The most common screen size & resolution was probably 15" and 800x600 when XP was first released. Highlighting 13 files in Explorer took up a lot of space relative to what was available, probably a lot more than Windows 8 Explorer does relative to the average screen size and resolution now. Cheers, Drew.
-
You must understand that Windows 8 isn't about managing files. It's about updating your status on facebook, sharing photos, and downloading MP3's.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
You must understand that Windows 8 isn't about managing files. It's about updating your status on facebook, sharing photos, and downloading MP3's.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Or perhaps better stated, Windows 8 is for consumers, and that isn't necessarily a slam. MS is making Windows friendly to regular, non-nerdly types. Consumers don't like file systems. So it's largely hidden from view. I remember back in the late 1990s, a tech futurist had predicted that file systems would disappear from the consumers view eventually. At the time I thought he was a little crazy, but now I see the wisdom in what he was saying: only nerds care about file systems. We have good reason to care about file systems. But most end users don't, and in fact, letting non-nerdly types futz with the file system might actually be a bad idea. Even the whole Metro environment aligns with this idea that, unless you know what you're doing, all your apps should be isolated and safe by default. Want an app that does something outside that box? Ok, open the car hood, crack open the full Windows desktop, install that bad boy. But for everything else, and for most apps, and for most people, you don't need that, and in fact, having that power is detrimental as non-nerds tend to install dubious apps that crap all over their systems. I hope all my relatives and friends who call me to fix their systems, I hope they all install Windows 8 when it's out. And I hope they never have to crack open the hood and futz with their file systems, or need to install "classic" Windows apps. If they stay in their walled Metro garden, they won't need me to bail them out every few months.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango -
snorkie wrote:
It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work!
I think you're not looking at the entire picture. The most common screen size & resolution was probably 15" and 800x600 when XP was first released. Highlighting 13 files in Explorer took up a lot of space relative to what was available, probably a lot more than Windows 8 Explorer does relative to the average screen size and resolution now. Cheers, Drew.
In some ways, screens are getting bigger, but in others, we're using smaller devices. My netbook will only display 800x600 and its fairly new with a 10 inch screen. Keeping with the idea that they do take up relatively the same space if you factor in the time when they were released, you have to wonder if we have gained anything. I would prefer the XP interface with today's equipment and be able to see all/more files per screen. Using "Drew's Law" (I just made up a law for you), in 20 years we'll all be using screens the size of movie theaters, but only be able to display 13 files because the menus will have gotten larger with each release :) Hogan
-
Or perhaps better stated, Windows 8 is for consumers, and that isn't necessarily a slam. MS is making Windows friendly to regular, non-nerdly types. Consumers don't like file systems. So it's largely hidden from view. I remember back in the late 1990s, a tech futurist had predicted that file systems would disappear from the consumers view eventually. At the time I thought he was a little crazy, but now I see the wisdom in what he was saying: only nerds care about file systems. We have good reason to care about file systems. But most end users don't, and in fact, letting non-nerdly types futz with the file system might actually be a bad idea. Even the whole Metro environment aligns with this idea that, unless you know what you're doing, all your apps should be isolated and safe by default. Want an app that does something outside that box? Ok, open the car hood, crack open the full Windows desktop, install that bad boy. But for everything else, and for most apps, and for most people, you don't need that, and in fact, having that power is detrimental as non-nerds tend to install dubious apps that crap all over their systems. I hope all my relatives and friends who call me to fix their systems, I hope they all install Windows 8 when it's out. And I hope they never have to crack open the hood and futz with their file systems, or need to install "classic" Windows apps. If they stay in their walled Metro garden, they won't need me to bail them out every few months.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango+5! Well said.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Or perhaps better stated, Windows 8 is for consumers, and that isn't necessarily a slam. MS is making Windows friendly to regular, non-nerdly types. Consumers don't like file systems. So it's largely hidden from view. I remember back in the late 1990s, a tech futurist had predicted that file systems would disappear from the consumers view eventually. At the time I thought he was a little crazy, but now I see the wisdom in what he was saying: only nerds care about file systems. We have good reason to care about file systems. But most end users don't, and in fact, letting non-nerdly types futz with the file system might actually be a bad idea. Even the whole Metro environment aligns with this idea that, unless you know what you're doing, all your apps should be isolated and safe by default. Want an app that does something outside that box? Ok, open the car hood, crack open the full Windows desktop, install that bad boy. But for everything else, and for most apps, and for most people, you don't need that, and in fact, having that power is detrimental as non-nerds tend to install dubious apps that crap all over their systems. I hope all my relatives and friends who call me to fix their systems, I hope they all install Windows 8 when it's out. And I hope they never have to crack open the hood and futz with their file systems, or need to install "classic" Windows apps. If they stay in their walled Metro garden, they won't need me to bail them out every few months.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango+5 That is probably the best argument I have heard for Windows 8 and the interface. You're basically politely stating that most end users are stupid. I believe you're right. Now there just needs to be an easy pseudo secret way to let power users get to the power and I'll be happy for the hopefully few times we have to fix mistakes. Hogan
-
The size of the ribbon has been what most people has complained about when it comes to the ribbon in the new Windows Explorer. And I simply don't understand why, you can minimize the ribbon and thus free up the valuable space.
It's my opinion that the fact that a piece of software can be configured to behave reasonably does not excuse the fact that the default behavior is unreasonable. Configurability can mitigate a flaw's negative impact, but it cannot eliminate it. Beyond the cost of writing the code for the configurability, there is the cost imposed on the end users, who must re-configure around unreasonable defaults. In some cases, users end up doing this over and over again. Because of the nature of my work, I end up working with fresh OS installs a great deal of the time. So, I've really grown weary of having to reconfigure annoying defaults, go through "first time run" wizards, and such. Is it unreasonable for me to expect Windows XP to show me file extensions by default, for example, in light of the fact that all of its ancestor OSes beginning with CP/M did show them? I don't think so, and hiding away a checkbox somewhere that allows me to fix this problem one computer at a time really doesn't address the fundamental problem. And perhaps most importantly, there are the costs associated with the confusion created by a highly configurable OS. Windows' GUI is (or at least was) a sort of common language that allowed diverse users to use diverse programs as quickly and comfortably as possible. Anything that weakens this shared graphical language is bad, in my opinion. Finally, Windows has a difficult enough time satisfying the needs of both home users and professional users. Attempting to make it work with other categories of users and devices is somewhat unreasonable, in my opinion. Microsoft understandably wants Windows to run on everything from your dishwasher to your GPS system... one wonders, though, how coherent the end result could possibly be.
-
You can use SMS for Twitter, so size doesn't really matter on cell phones...
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
It's my opinion that the fact that a piece of software can be configured to behave reasonably does not excuse the fact that the default behavior is unreasonable. Configurability can mitigate a flaw's negative impact, but it cannot eliminate it. Beyond the cost of writing the code for the configurability, there is the cost imposed on the end users, who must re-configure around unreasonable defaults. In some cases, users end up doing this over and over again. Because of the nature of my work, I end up working with fresh OS installs a great deal of the time. So, I've really grown weary of having to reconfigure annoying defaults, go through "first time run" wizards, and such. Is it unreasonable for me to expect Windows XP to show me file extensions by default, for example, in light of the fact that all of its ancestor OSes beginning with CP/M did show them? I don't think so, and hiding away a checkbox somewhere that allows me to fix this problem one computer at a time really doesn't address the fundamental problem. And perhaps most importantly, there are the costs associated with the confusion created by a highly configurable OS. Windows' GUI is (or at least was) a sort of common language that allowed diverse users to use diverse programs as quickly and comfortably as possible. Anything that weakens this shared graphical language is bad, in my opinion. Finally, Windows has a difficult enough time satisfying the needs of both home users and professional users. Attempting to make it work with other categories of users and devices is somewhat unreasonable, in my opinion. Microsoft understandably wants Windows to run on everything from your dishwasher to your GPS system... one wonders, though, how coherent the end result could possibly be.
_beauw_ wrote:
Configurability can mitigate a flaw's negative impact, but it cannot eliminate it. Beyond the cost of writing the code for the configurability, there is the cost imposed on the end users, who must re-configure around unreasonable defaults.
In this case, the default is probably reasonable for most users.
Kevin
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
snorkie wrote:
But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen.
On a desktop it's OK for me. Traditionally I rarely run Explorer in full screen anyway. Of course, you can collapse the ribbon, though elsewhere someone says that should be the default. I do however tend to run Office in full screen.
Kevin
-
Or perhaps better stated, Windows 8 is for consumers, and that isn't necessarily a slam. MS is making Windows friendly to regular, non-nerdly types. Consumers don't like file systems. So it's largely hidden from view. I remember back in the late 1990s, a tech futurist had predicted that file systems would disappear from the consumers view eventually. At the time I thought he was a little crazy, but now I see the wisdom in what he was saying: only nerds care about file systems. We have good reason to care about file systems. But most end users don't, and in fact, letting non-nerdly types futz with the file system might actually be a bad idea. Even the whole Metro environment aligns with this idea that, unless you know what you're doing, all your apps should be isolated and safe by default. Want an app that does something outside that box? Ok, open the car hood, crack open the full Windows desktop, install that bad boy. But for everything else, and for most apps, and for most people, you don't need that, and in fact, having that power is detrimental as non-nerds tend to install dubious apps that crap all over their systems. I hope all my relatives and friends who call me to fix their systems, I hope they all install Windows 8 when it's out. And I hope they never have to crack open the hood and futz with their file systems, or need to install "classic" Windows apps. If they stay in their walled Metro garden, they won't need me to bail them out every few months.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." Many people are extremely adept at not understanding technology, no matter how simple it is.
-
I found a blog post about Improvements in Windows Explorer for Windows 8[^]. The post goes to great lengths to make the argument that Windows Explorer in Windows 8 is going to be a vast improvement over the previous versions. The new improvement is the Ribbon API. If you're not aware, the Ribbon API basically takes the file menu and places all of its items as pictures. There is no longer a drop down to display the individual items. See the left side of the image below to see it. The blog goes on to elaborate about the greatness of the Ribbon and all of its advantages. As a power user, I consider the ribbon to be a waste of valuable screen space that could be used for something else. It is interesting to note that Windows 8 is being designed for tablets and phones. But when I look at how much space the ribbon takes up on my large monitor, I can't imagine how little space I would have left to do any actual work if this was on my netbook's 10 inch screen. I find it interesting that the Windows Explorer group is going with larger menus that take up valuable screen real estate while the Internet Explorer group is minimizing the space on the screen that the browser takes up and maximizing the space that the web page can display its content. Maybe the Internet Explorer team could lend their design people to the Explorer group for a few months... To the heart of my point, I took three screen shots of Windows Explorer, one in Windows 8, one in Windows 7, and the final in Windows XP. Each screen shot has 13 files highlighted on the screen to demonstrate how efficient Explorer was at doing what it was designed for. All images were taken at 1600x1200 resolution and placed next to each other for comparison. I didn't modify the size of any of the pictures other than cutting out the relevant piece for viewing. It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work! Side by side comparison of Windows 8/7/XP Windows Explorer[^] Hogan
As others have said, it's to be more friendly to the average non-technical user and maybe also to be more friendly for touch. I will probably end up minimizing the ribbon, and putting a few key shortcuts in the quick access bar. Did you know that when you double-click on the ribbon, it minimizes it? Once you minimize it, the ribbon tabs act more like menus - click on them and they appear, click a button or click elsewhere and they close.
-
snorkie wrote:
It appears to me that we're going in the wrong direction for efficiency and space to complete actual work!
I think you're not looking at the entire picture. The most common screen size & resolution was probably 15" and 800x600 when XP was first released. Highlighting 13 files in Explorer took up a lot of space relative to what was available, probably a lot more than Windows 8 Explorer does relative to the average screen size and resolution now. Cheers, Drew.
Interesting... but I partially agree. So now win 8 has relatively bigger screen and resolution, that doent mean it can eat up the space. otherwise what is the use of getting bigger screen/resolution ? so that we have have more buttons ? ... I think more content is what most important. But hopefully they will make the ribbon with auto-hide option, just like MS Office. and problem solved for us. no menu, no rebbon, only content. just like IE 9. :)
-
It's my opinion that the fact that a piece of software can be configured to behave reasonably does not excuse the fact that the default behavior is unreasonable. Configurability can mitigate a flaw's negative impact, but it cannot eliminate it. Beyond the cost of writing the code for the configurability, there is the cost imposed on the end users, who must re-configure around unreasonable defaults. In some cases, users end up doing this over and over again. Because of the nature of my work, I end up working with fresh OS installs a great deal of the time. So, I've really grown weary of having to reconfigure annoying defaults, go through "first time run" wizards, and such. Is it unreasonable for me to expect Windows XP to show me file extensions by default, for example, in light of the fact that all of its ancestor OSes beginning with CP/M did show them? I don't think so, and hiding away a checkbox somewhere that allows me to fix this problem one computer at a time really doesn't address the fundamental problem. And perhaps most importantly, there are the costs associated with the confusion created by a highly configurable OS. Windows' GUI is (or at least was) a sort of common language that allowed diverse users to use diverse programs as quickly and comfortably as possible. Anything that weakens this shared graphical language is bad, in my opinion. Finally, Windows has a difficult enough time satisfying the needs of both home users and professional users. Attempting to make it work with other categories of users and devices is somewhat unreasonable, in my opinion. Microsoft understandably wants Windows to run on everything from your dishwasher to your GPS system... one wonders, though, how coherent the end result could possibly be.
Working with a fresh install often cannot be taken into account by Microsoft, you represent such a small group. And I'm sure you could ease up some of the configuring by either using an image instead of installing windows or making a .reg file which can probably change 80% of the defaults you do not like. I just played around with the developer preview yesterday and from what I saw Windows 8 offers me absolutely nothing and I will be staying with Window 7 until I know of a way to turn that metro thing of, which I personally hate. And that's just fine I know Microsoft ain't developing an OS aimed at developers, and they never will.
