Will Windows 8 kill win32 API?
-
CodeBubba wrote:
I really think that MS has completely gone nuts. 30 years of advance in display technology only to convert the system back to flat white with monochromatic icons (Metro). If I were strictly a consumer (rather than a developer) I would consider going with a Mac on the next go 'round.
Really? I think Metro is a refreshing reset. The Aero design aesthetic was the last step down a slippery slope of complexity, with too many pixels and too much GPU horsepower devoted to chrome. Aero did too much stuff "because they could", and not because it was a good idea. Maybe you remember having to upgrade your PC's graphics card so it could do Aero. Maybe you didn't, and got the old windows look and didn't notice. I'm all in favor of design simplicity and reserving pixels for the application, not the chrome. I haven't had to live with metro yet, so if you tell me they did simplicity wrong, I won't argue.
SeattleC++ wrote:
I haven't had to live with metro yet, so if you tell me they did simplicity wrong, I won't argue.
Personally, yes, I think they did it wrong. I don't know many people that have any problem with the "chrome" aspects of Win7. I don't have any problem with it: I think it's pretty attractive to look at and pretty intuitive myself. Though I have upgraded machines over the years I haven't swapped out video cards to keep up with it. At one time I thought the front-end for XP was plenty sufficient in terms of graphics. I still think it would be. However, Metro, is such a massive step backwards it's pretty amazing. Flat white screens with flat gray/green/orange monochromatic icons. Excuse me? Well hell, then, let's just go back to CGA displays then if we're THAT concerned about CGI performance. For that matter, maybe I'll dust off that old monochrome IBM PC I used to have. Who needs chrome? My car is too visually confusing, too ... I'll just rip off all the chrome parts and let flat steel suffice. It will look OK to SOMEBODY. Why waste the metal on chrome, it's just useless eye candy, right? Never mind the nice colorful and detailed icons I use in the toolbar in Office 2003. A monochrome icon ought to do fine! Really makes 'em simple. (And hard to discriminate - but then again shape is everything!) -CB ;-)
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I think you need to remove "super" from your user ID, unless "norb" is a foreign translation of the term "retard".
:omg: Was that really necessary John?
Yes, it was.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
SeattleC++ wrote:
I haven't had to live with metro yet, so if you tell me they did simplicity wrong, I won't argue.
Personally, yes, I think they did it wrong. I don't know many people that have any problem with the "chrome" aspects of Win7. I don't have any problem with it: I think it's pretty attractive to look at and pretty intuitive myself. Though I have upgraded machines over the years I haven't swapped out video cards to keep up with it. At one time I thought the front-end for XP was plenty sufficient in terms of graphics. I still think it would be. However, Metro, is such a massive step backwards it's pretty amazing. Flat white screens with flat gray/green/orange monochromatic icons. Excuse me? Well hell, then, let's just go back to CGA displays then if we're THAT concerned about CGI performance. For that matter, maybe I'll dust off that old monochrome IBM PC I used to have. Who needs chrome? My car is too visually confusing, too ... I'll just rip off all the chrome parts and let flat steel suffice. It will look OK to SOMEBODY. Why waste the metal on chrome, it's just useless eye candy, right? Never mind the nice colorful and detailed icons I use in the toolbar in Office 2003. A monochrome icon ought to do fine! Really makes 'em simple. (And hard to discriminate - but then again shape is everything!) -CB ;-)
I'm waiting to make up my mind until I see some metro-ified apps of the complexity of Word or Visual Studio. The partial simplification of MSVC 2012 looks pretty appealing. Microsoft has serious human-factors people who test these designs to see if they are an improvement. I doubt metro would have escaped the lab if there was evidence that it was worse than what came before. I remember grumbling that mice and windows were a crock and could never be as productive as keyboard shortcuts. I think it's safe to say I called that one wrong. I expect it's the same way with the metro-haters.
-
I'm waiting to make up my mind until I see some metro-ified apps of the complexity of Word or Visual Studio. The partial simplification of MSVC 2012 looks pretty appealing. Microsoft has serious human-factors people who test these designs to see if they are an improvement. I doubt metro would have escaped the lab if there was evidence that it was worse than what came before. I remember grumbling that mice and windows were a crock and could never be as productive as keyboard shortcuts. I think it's safe to say I called that one wrong. I expect it's the same way with the metro-haters.
SeattleC++ wrote:
I remember grumbling that mice and windows were a crock and could never be as productive as keyboard shortcuts. I think it's safe to say I called that one wrong. I expect it's the same way with the metro-haters.
The implication being that Microsoft could not have made a design mistake with Metro? Microsoft too big to make a major mistake? Well, I guess we'll just have to see, eh? Offhand, what I think may happen is that Metro (or whatever they'll ultimately wind up calling it) will gain some limited acceptance only by virtue of Microsoft's market penetration. By the same token, that market penetration may spell its (Metro's) doom. The desktop paradigm as it presently is has such wide market use that there will be tremendous resistance. There are huge markets that make use of the desktop the way it is that will have zero interest in retooling everything YET AGAIN just because Microsoft decided to change the GUI. Up until now most of the improvements in the system built on what was already there. MS is (I'm sure at their own admission) trying to open up an entirely new market. I imagine there will be some success in it, but alienating the installed base doesn't seem wise. Oh well ... that's just me. My impression of the thing doesn't matter. We'll see how well it does. After playing with it for close to a year I still can't envision retooling to it. Setting aside the fact that it's just butt-ugly, there has been nothing about it demonstrated that shows me that I need it in any way. I know I'm not alone in this view either. The $64,000 question here is how big is the group I'm in? -CB
-
The same thing that's "fancy and modern" about steel and glass kitchens. The materials have been there for a while but now, the 'industrial minimalism' look is in ;)
Heh... maybe so. I think I'll leave the wood cabinets in my kitchen! -CB ;-)
-
SeattleC++ wrote:
I remember grumbling that mice and windows were a crock and could never be as productive as keyboard shortcuts. I think it's safe to say I called that one wrong. I expect it's the same way with the metro-haters.
The implication being that Microsoft could not have made a design mistake with Metro? Microsoft too big to make a major mistake? Well, I guess we'll just have to see, eh? Offhand, what I think may happen is that Metro (or whatever they'll ultimately wind up calling it) will gain some limited acceptance only by virtue of Microsoft's market penetration. By the same token, that market penetration may spell its (Metro's) doom. The desktop paradigm as it presently is has such wide market use that there will be tremendous resistance. There are huge markets that make use of the desktop the way it is that will have zero interest in retooling everything YET AGAIN just because Microsoft decided to change the GUI. Up until now most of the improvements in the system built on what was already there. MS is (I'm sure at their own admission) trying to open up an entirely new market. I imagine there will be some success in it, but alienating the installed base doesn't seem wise. Oh well ... that's just me. My impression of the thing doesn't matter. We'll see how well it does. After playing with it for close to a year I still can't envision retooling to it. Setting aside the fact that it's just butt-ugly, there has been nothing about it demonstrated that shows me that I need it in any way. I know I'm not alone in this view either. The $64,000 question here is how big is the group I'm in? -CB
CodeBubba wrote:
The implication being that Microsoft could not have made a design mistake with Metro? Microsoft too big to make a major mistake? Well, I guess we'll just have to see, eh?
Microsoft makes plenty of mistakes in strategy. Their ability to execute in detail and to nibble away at a problem forever is notable, however.
CodeBubba wrote:
The desktop paradigm as it presently is has such wide market use that there will be tremendous resistance.
I used to think that too, until I went back over the history of the Windows UI, from menu screens and keyboard shortcuts ca mid 1980's pre-windows, to drop-down menus ca 1989, to context menus and the start button ca 1995, to button bars ca 2002, to the much abused ribbon and the de-emphasis of menus ca 2008, to metro's gestures and normally off-screen charms today. Windows is evolving, and metro looks like a logical step in that evolution. We already know people like gestures. I wouldn't bet on lasting resistance to metro. Your mileage may vary. If so, you can step into the Linux vortex and go back in time to the comfortable familiarity of 1995 if you like. Ouch. ;)
-
Heh... maybe so. I think I'll leave the wood cabinets in my kitchen! -CB ;-)
-
LOL, Ice!
-
CodeBubba wrote:
The implication being that Microsoft could not have made a design mistake with Metro? Microsoft too big to make a major mistake? Well, I guess we'll just have to see, eh?
Microsoft makes plenty of mistakes in strategy. Their ability to execute in detail and to nibble away at a problem forever is notable, however.
CodeBubba wrote:
The desktop paradigm as it presently is has such wide market use that there will be tremendous resistance.
I used to think that too, until I went back over the history of the Windows UI, from menu screens and keyboard shortcuts ca mid 1980's pre-windows, to drop-down menus ca 1989, to context menus and the start button ca 1995, to button bars ca 2002, to the much abused ribbon and the de-emphasis of menus ca 2008, to metro's gestures and normally off-screen charms today. Windows is evolving, and metro looks like a logical step in that evolution. We already know people like gestures. I wouldn't bet on lasting resistance to metro. Your mileage may vary. If so, you can step into the Linux vortex and go back in time to the comfortable familiarity of 1995 if you like. Ouch. ;)
SeattleC++ wrote:
I wouldn't bet on lasting resistance to metro. Your mileage may vary. If so, you can step into the Linux vortex and go back in time to the comfortable familiarity of 1995 if you like.
Ouch. ;)LOL! Now let's not get extreme, eh? You know ... I'm not against the concept of Metro as much as I'm annoyed at the way Microsoft implemented it. I realize that touch computing is where it's at right now or I wouldn't own a new iPad and an iPhone 4S. (I went with the iPhone when I saw Metro on the Windows Mobile platform: previously I was all WinMo). The main things that irk me with MS's approach this time is that they are implementing the new approach by mucking up the existing one. All this time we've trended toward more colorful interfaces (chrome if you will) now all-of-a-sudden a reversal back to CGA style graphics. Also ... Microsoft could have developed Win8 so that Metro could run as a subsystem to the desktop instead of the other way around, but they didn't. However, having said all that: I'm not all that worked-up about it. Some people are really getting ANGRY over this whole thing. I'm just mildly annoyed. I think I'd be angry if I were one of Microsoft's partners that they just kicked under the bus with the Surface thing. Someone's gonna get shot over that! ;-) Truth be told, though, it doesn't really matter much to me one way or the other. I develop mostly back-end (intelligence) code and anything I do on the GUI level is to the desktop. My stuff still runs fine in Win8. I just don't see "8" as a need for myself. It just doesn't offer anything that I consider to be an upgrade, that's all. My systems are all very current (i5's and i7's)and Win7 is going to be viable for another 10 years at-least. I'm just going to sit this one out for awhile and observe it. To spend any money retooling would be a waste to me right now. -CB ;-)
-
The consumer trend is going mobile with tablet gradually replacing PC. However, so far there has not been a tablet powerful enough to do that. Microsoft surface could be the beginning.
TOMZ_KV
Tomz_KV wrote:
The consumer trend is going mobile with tablet gradually replacing PC.
Fair point, but i don't expect the PC to disappear, they will simply become a niche product (for IT pros).
Tomz_KV wrote:
However, so far there has not been a tablet powerful enough to do that. Microsoft surface could be the beginning.
Perhaps, but i'm not holding my breath, and until i see one surface (no pun intended), i wouldn't change my mind. As a related side note, i believe what is holding tablets to take PCs place is their closed nature and the lack of tools for self hosting (meaning that to develop tools for your tablet, you need a computer, and sometimes the blessing of the plataform owner). :sigh:
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...