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
-
I'm confused, because your screenshot of Windows 7 does not look anything like my Windows 7 Explorer. It should look almost identical to Windows 8, minus the ribbon. That looks kind of like Windows Server 2008, not Windows 7. Where did you get your screen shot?
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! Have you tried turning it off and on again? Have you tried forcing an unexpected reboot?
I took the screen shot from my desktop. Its a Win7 Ultimate x64 OS. I'm not running the defaults, but I believe it is close enough for comparison. Compared to XP explorer, it is still too large. I prefer smaller windows with more useful information. To me explorer interface should maximize the files/folders that it displays. Hogan
-
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 can minimize the ribbon by clicking the "carat" button (the upside down v) at the right end of the ribbon and this will "autohide" the ribbon contents. Clicking on what remains will show the ribbon for use but otherwise, give you more room in the list view.
Mike Poz
-
You can use SMS for Twitter, so size doesn't really matter on cell phones...
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
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)
-
Why do I feel another Vista looming on the horizon. They create a OS that they feel they can make a butt load of money on and incidentally we're going require you purchase a new set of tools to do it with a multitude of inherited bugs that we've totally ignored fixing since .Net -.0009. And the training why that's extra too, man we can clean up on this puppy. I downloaded it and played with it for about 20 min.. To say I didn't care for it would be an understatement. Might be different if I had a tablet but for desktop usage...nah!
Sects Therapy
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
Why do I feel another Vista looming on the horizon.
That would mean they have speeded up their lifecycle. It used to be every third release sucked.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
That would mean they have speeded up their lifecycle. It used to be every third release sucked.
But that was with Gates at the helm.
Sects Therapy
-
You can minimize the ribbon by clicking the "carat" button (the upside down v) at the right end of the ribbon and this will "autohide" the ribbon contents. Clicking on what remains will show the ribbon for use but otherwise, give you more room in the list view.
Mike Poz
-
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 -
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 -
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
-
snorkie wrote:
The new improvement is the Ribbon API.
In fairness this statement is utterly wrong. There are a *lot* of seriously good improvements that I've read about in explorer and ribbon was pretty far down on the list in the articles I read. That aside I agree that I just can't get behind the ribbon, I think it looks like crap takes up too much space and is confusing and byzantine at best but ignoring that they did make a *lot* of big improvements to explorer that were long overdue in a modern o.s.
There is no failure only feedback
-
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 HimangoUnfortunately, Windows 8 won't keep your users from getting viruses. You will still be needed.
-
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
Larger menus to accommodate touch screens like the tablets and PCs with touch screens. Fingers are fatter than mouse pointers and applications will need to change for that reason. On a normal application, try selecting the file menu option from the application's menu with your finger. You might get the file menu to open, you might get the system menu to open, you might get what is on the line below to open and run. Touch screen applications are quite different.
-
Unfortunately, Windows 8 won't keep your users from getting viruses. You will still be needed.
Actually, it will help. If you stay in the Metro walled garden, which I think most consumers will, you'll have fewer chances of getting a virus, since each Metro app is self-contained, sandboxed by the runtime, and approved by the MS app store.
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango -
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.
Yourt inability to see why others, many others, are unhappy with the Ribbon does not automatically disqualify it as being a valid complaint. I imagine there is one or 2 things you find botehring or annoying about some software (not necessarily Windows) that others have no issue with; should that disqualify the validty of your complaint? Remeber, to each his own. Just because you don't see anothers side of things that does not mean they are wrong nor that you are right but that both are simply different.
-
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 without merit or justification and is dead on in its goal of showing how the changes are not for the better just because Microsoft Marketing says it is. I've read replies about how the change really is better especially for the tablet which is where every should be planning to go, at least that’s the stance of the commenter. It always amazes me how some in tech are of the attitude that all change is good because lack of change is always bad; a very narrow minded ideology. The reality is that Microsoft has approached the whole thing, the makeover of Windows classic Menu & Toolbar interface the wrong way. Had they followed Object oriented Programming best practices and created a loosely coupled systems where the interface (what the user is provided on the screen to interact with) and the procedures and processes it calls then they would be able to offer the best of both works by allowing users to decide between the classic Menu & Toolbar interface or then new Origami design as I like to call the Ribbon makeover. Why did a seemingly intelligent technology leader like Microsoft not follow this simple rule in OOP? Because the end goal is not about making a better and more user friendly product but making enough visual changes to justify the continued costs to upgrade. Without the Ribbon the office 2007 Upgrade would not have looked as cost worthy an upgrade since its visual changes would have ben far less noticeable. The Ribbon or Origami interface is more about perception justifying costs than anything user related. I believe this same approach has been applied to other areas of Windows like the changes in Explorer.
