Windows 8 and the split personality Metro interface
-
It would have been a lot better to have a windows "Switch Mode", and either Tablet or Desktop view. I hate the Reader, Photos, Video apps that are now the defaults, and have returned the default applications to the standard Media Player, Photo Viewer, apps. Oh, and did you know that on a tablet (Galaxy Tab 10) the CodeProject desktop style (as in selecting Chrome's request desktop site option) is alot more useable than the defaulting mobile css. Just saying :rolleyes:
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
DaveAuld wrote:
Oh, and did you know that on a tablet (Galaxy Tab 10) the CodeProject desktop style (as in selecting Chrome's request desktop site option) is alot more useable than the defaulting mobile css.
I find that I use the 'Full Site' on my Windows Mobile too.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
I have an old LifeBook T4215, running XP Tablet PC Edition - doesn't really have a touch screen as such, you need to use a special pen to draw/write on the screen. I have Adobe CS3 installed and using the pen works pretty well - it's curently my oldest laptop, and I now I use it mostly for reading stuff.
Chris Maunder wrote:
It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this
Invert the interfaces, and make 'metro' behave like glorifed 'dos boxes' which can be run i full screen mode - or not, depending on the users' needs/wishes at that particular moment. It should not be to hard to add rudimentary touch behaviour to the desktop. From a development perspective I really don't want to see another 'helium weight' OS where security has been sacrificed/compromised.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
Espen Harlinn wrote:
Invert the interfaces, and make 'metro' behave like glorifed 'dos boxes' which can be run i full screen mode - or not, depending on the users' needs/wishes at that particular moment.
There's at least one 3rd party tool[^] to do that.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I think the way people think is wrong. When the mouse came out we didn't stop using the keyboard and we should treat touch screens the same (a 3rd input). There's no doubt that Win 8 feels like it has an identity crisis but after being forced to use it for a couple of weeks, Win 7 feels clumsy and slow.
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
1. There's a lot of talk about MS trying to be more like apple, with Win 8. 2. If you start an apple desktop or laptop, it doesn't open with the iphone GUI. 3. This is a clear demonstration of the creative individuality of MS. They should be proud.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface
You can (grab at top + pull to bottom, ALT+F4 for everything but the start screen, Or on desktop ram mouse to top left, then right-click app and select close) - it's just very badly executed. Typical Microsoft. Somewhen around Windows 11, it will be cool. I guess Microsoft just wanted an App Store like all the other big guys. It's just ... badly executed. Typical Microsoft.
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I refuse to install it on my desktop. Had a little play with it on my parents new laptop and the one thing that I absolutely wanted to do I can't do with it (as far as I can tell). I have 3 (24") screens on my desktop so I wanted to keep the new start menu open on one screen at all times and have the apps/programs open on one of the others. Seems that I can't do that, as soon as a program opens the start menu goes away. So not going to bother installing it as it seems it brings a lot of overhead to desktop users. Also took me a google search to find the damn shut down button, really Microsoft, I have to go into 'settings' in order to shut down my pc?? I can see the interface being usable with tough devices but with the mouse it's not that easy, although I have to admit that the 'apps' are good for people that don't know much about pc's (like my parents). My parents picked up on it pretty fast (after I set all the needed settings of course)
-
Espen Harlinn wrote:
Invert the interfaces, and make 'metro' behave like glorifed 'dos boxes' which can be run i full screen mode - or not, depending on the users' needs/wishes at that particular moment.
There's at least one 3rd party tool[^] to do that.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
:thumbsup: Looks like I have to renew my object desktop subscription ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
I refuse to install it on my desktop. Had a little play with it on my parents new laptop and the one thing that I absolutely wanted to do I can't do with it (as far as I can tell). I have 3 (24") screens on my desktop so I wanted to keep the new start menu open on one screen at all times and have the apps/programs open on one of the others. Seems that I can't do that, as soon as a program opens the start menu goes away. So not going to bother installing it as it seems it brings a lot of overhead to desktop users. Also took me a google search to find the damn shut down button, really Microsoft, I have to go into 'settings' in order to shut down my pc?? I can see the interface being usable with tough devices but with the mouse it's not that easy, although I have to admit that the 'apps' are good for people that don't know much about pc's (like my parents). My parents picked up on it pretty fast (after I set all the needed settings of course)
Be fair. This is because MS realises that more and more people are using the Eclipse IDE, so they are helping those people by adding the familiar Eclipse "Where the **** have they put it and why the **** would they put the ****ing thing there?!?" GUI-function-distribution methodology. They should be proud.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop
I believe this is part of the move to kill the desktop. They couldn't simply kill desktop windows for obvious reasons (backwards compatibility, etc). While they can't get rid of old and inefficient x86 architecture, the transition included having both kernels running. One that supports only x86 and the other that can run on ARM processors too. Given time, the new kernel will have enough applications so the x86 based OS can be discarded. This is at least my opinion one of the reasons why they are keeping both at the same. Also, having the desktop able to integrate with the remaining devices in Microsoft product family should be part of this transition. Another good reason is to have WinRT hit the greatest audience possible and that will happen given the OEM distributions of the OS. They could have kept the start menu though :sigh:
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I think I am in the minority of 1 when I say this (outside of MS at least) but I think MS have definitely made the right choice here. W.I.M.P; thirty+ years in the making has been honed and extended universally, and computing has moved from the domain of scientists, through experts, to the realm of an everyday consumer device, and now W.I.M.P has been found wanting. This is mainly due to form factor, mobility, and ease of use, and so we are left with only two choices for the next thirty+ years. Either move all of our interfaces forward to make a unified interface, or keep separate the two interfaces, and as a manufacturer of software (and now hardware) for a variety of form factors, then it seems to me that the best way forward is a single unified interface, or one which, like Metro, promotes a main interface with a secondary interface for the expert and domain specific users. This isn't a new phenomenon, as, even with W.I.M.P. the CLI has continued to exist for a variety of expert uses, and is available from most W.I.M.P. implementations. I think it is a fair assumption that we will have a touch or gesture interface with single-app full screen coverage as the primary interface for all devices in the future, with access to a mature W.I.M.P. interface supporting multiple APPs/windows for professional and workflow usage. Beneath this we will continue to have CLI access and tooling. MS then, are the only company so far to give it a go, and that's got to put them in a position to drive forwards this over the next few years, so kudos to them, even if their first implementation leaves something to be desired.
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
In reference to the general love/hate people have with Win8 - I can relate. At first use Windows 8 was clunky and unnatural, but most of that was because I wanted it to behave like the Windows I knew. I went hunting around for free Start Menu alternatives like so many others and even installed one. But I don't use it. What I discovered was that, for MY work habits, I rarely used the Start Menu; the few times I do use it I actually just used the search feature to quickly locate the app that I wanted rather than attempting to navigate the countless program folder groups. Pre-Windows 7 I used to spend time organizing these groups, but with Windows 7 Start Menu search and pin-able taskbar apps this is no longer necessary. This means my behavior in Windows 8 is actually the same - if I want to open regedit I just hit the start key on my keyboard and start typing "regedit" and hit ENTER. Don't get me wrong - Windows 8 has lots of things that still drive me crazy. As another comment posted - what idiot at MS decided that putting Shutdown under settings made sense? Why is it so un-intuitive to close a Metro app? Why are we forced to use the Metro interface by default rather than simply having a choice based on our user preference? And finally (the hardest question) - how can you properly blend the old and the new in a way that doesn't make one want to pull out their hair (IE10 Metro <> IE10 Desktop, why do some apps default to a metro instance, like when I double-click a PDF, or photo?) I completely understand that this comes down to personal use and work habits, but a lot of people forget that each significant new interface change takes some getting used to. Lots of people had the same negative reaction to Windows 95 back in the day (remember everyone complaining about "why do I have to click Start to Shutdown"?) Surprise, surprise - Microsoft isn't perfect! There's lots of things that they screwed up on with this release and (hopefully) many of these will be fixed with 8.1 (or 7.2 or 6.3). It's not like almighty Apple gets it right the first time either - heck, I still can't navigate their iTunes UI without wanting to take a long walk off a short pier.
-
In reference to the general love/hate people have with Win8 - I can relate. At first use Windows 8 was clunky and unnatural, but most of that was because I wanted it to behave like the Windows I knew. I went hunting around for free Start Menu alternatives like so many others and even installed one. But I don't use it. What I discovered was that, for MY work habits, I rarely used the Start Menu; the few times I do use it I actually just used the search feature to quickly locate the app that I wanted rather than attempting to navigate the countless program folder groups. Pre-Windows 7 I used to spend time organizing these groups, but with Windows 7 Start Menu search and pin-able taskbar apps this is no longer necessary. This means my behavior in Windows 8 is actually the same - if I want to open regedit I just hit the start key on my keyboard and start typing "regedit" and hit ENTER. Don't get me wrong - Windows 8 has lots of things that still drive me crazy. As another comment posted - what idiot at MS decided that putting Shutdown under settings made sense? Why is it so un-intuitive to close a Metro app? Why are we forced to use the Metro interface by default rather than simply having a choice based on our user preference? And finally (the hardest question) - how can you properly blend the old and the new in a way that doesn't make one want to pull out their hair (IE10 Metro <> IE10 Desktop, why do some apps default to a metro instance, like when I double-click a PDF, or photo?) I completely understand that this comes down to personal use and work habits, but a lot of people forget that each significant new interface change takes some getting used to. Lots of people had the same negative reaction to Windows 95 back in the day (remember everyone complaining about "why do I have to click Start to Shutdown"?) Surprise, surprise - Microsoft isn't perfect! There's lots of things that they screwed up on with this release and (hopefully) many of these will be fixed with 8.1 (or 7.2 or 6.3). It's not like almighty Apple gets it right the first time either - heck, I still can't navigate their iTunes UI without wanting to take a long walk off a short pier.
I agree. Windows 8 has a lot of great features, even game-changing improvements. Microsoft is running in the right direction. Running sideways and backwards, sometimes, but still moving mostly the right way. Windows 8 has most of the pieces needed to be a truly great operating system. Getting there is more a matter of tweaking what they have than rebuilding. I like that my phone and my tablet have so much in common in how they operate. I think that phone, tablet and desktop should all work basically the same way. There will be differences brought about by the limitations of each form factor, but the OS doesn't necessarily need to be different for each case. Having appropriate settings available (and installed with defaults based on the device) should be able to take care of the problems while allowing single-path development. Imagine having the same control type render differently based on device type, but working the same way behind the scenes. You might need to have extra code based on whether or not touch and or mouse were available, and would have to account for different screen sizes - but one build would apply to phones, tablets and desktops instead of having one different build for each. It might take a couple more years, but I think Windows will get there. And when they do, let's hope they allowing installing your own software on your own computer.
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I bought a Surface RT when they came out. While it doesn't get much use due to a weak app store (that will change over time), I see it for what it is. It's Vista. In other words, it's a throwaway version that will fill the pipeline, get people used to it, and then Windows 9 will take lessons learned and present something usable, as was the case with Windows 7. I was visiting family last week and my niece (14 years old) has a new laptop. It came with Win 8 and she's just taking it as it comes. Eventually Metro will become normal, apps will migrate to that UI instead of the desktop, and then we'll hopefully see the benefits as developers. When Metro is normal on PCs and tablets, it'll also be normal on phones. And then, perhaps, MS will finally become a serious player in mobile just because people will appreciate having the same UI on all their devices. They're playing the long game. It sucks in the short term, but it's a strategy that's worked for them in the past given their dominance in the PC world. That said, does anyone else think that the desktop bears a striking resemblance to Windows 3.1?
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
-
I think most people know this, but saying "that damned ugly piece of crap that used to be called Metro" gets repetitive.
.-. |o,o| ,| \_\\=/\_ .-""-. ||/\_/\_\\\_\\ /\[\] \_ \_\\ |\_/|(\_)|\\\\ \_|\_o\_LII|\_ \\.\_./// / | ==== | \\ |\\\_/|"\` |\_| ==== |\_| |\_|\_| ||" || || |-|-| ||LI o || |\_|\_| ||'----'|| /\_/ \\\_\\ /\_\_| |\_\_\\ -
I used a realy good Start button type shell on windows 8 the other week, dont recall which, but it was free, and just like XP.
============================== Nothing to say.
I remember when people made fun of the "Start" button when it came out with Win95 ("Press 'Start" to quit?"), now we can't live without it?
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
I think the way people think is wrong. When the mouse came out we didn't stop using the keyboard and we should treat touch screens the same (a 3rd input). There's no doubt that Win 8 feels like it has an identity crisis but after being forced to use it for a couple of weeks, Win 7 feels clumsy and slow.
button now requires a swipe over the entire height of the screen. Multiselect isn't available. Not even with touch. There's nothing wrong with introducing new technologies, but it's stupid to ignore the existance of millions of applications that are better controlled using a mouse, and then cripple mouse usability! I've used Win8 for a couple of weeks on my ultrabook, and I don't see anything that's inherently better than with Win7. But I did notice a whole lot of things that are now more difficult than they used to be. If your Win7 feels slow, how old is the machine it's running on? Mine is 2.5 years, but it doesn't feel notably slower than my brand new Win8 ultrabook. -
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Well, I'm still confused, too; and disappointed; how unfortunate that confusion, and disappointment, shared, are not always diluted :) ! On the other hand, this particular disappointment is less, for me, than that of seeing what I believed to be a remarkable future for Windows Forms disappear into what became the late WPF, SilverLight, etc. I have yet to own any touch-driven device, except a cheap knock-off mobile phone from China that's running (I'm pretty sure) a kind of iPhone4-like "UI veneer" over Android. And that, I use only for telephone calls, for which it's surprisingly useful, and easy to use. So, I haven't yet had the "tablet moment," which I can see is important in your essay here. Perhaps without having had the experience of using a small form-factor device to go on-line frequently, while traveling around, I may be "blind" to the point you are making about transit via tablet to new "desktop," rather than via "phone." But, if you'll excuse me for interpreting the gist of your comments as an argument for "one Windows, many skins" (a "vision" that makes perfect sense to me): well, I do find that idea a compelling "backboard" off which to bounce speculations about how Enterprise/Redmond bought into a bad batch of dilithium crystals, and got stuck in low-earth orbit. ... begin rant ... tag-line: "This is not your granddad's old mobile." For myself, I've found it hard to believe that "Modern" ... aka the whatever formerly known as "Metro" ... is a "design language," a "user interface design philosophy," or, anything, other than a kind of grandiose "cultish hive-mind" product of Microsoft's sending a misled (Sinofsky, now cast-into-outta-MS darkness, cast as "Svengali," or "Rasputin" ?) group of people off into a "virtual wilderness" in a state (I imagine) of apocalyptic paranoia, mesmerized (by sensory deprivation ?) into thinking they had to "save the company," gathering daily for hours-long sessions of screaming in rage: "Apple's venomous fangs are poised to strike;" alternating with: "Evil emasculating bitch Android wants Ballmer's balls." Then, exhausted of frenzy, re-fueled on Microsoft's own secret sauce (internally referred to by the code-words "kool-aid"), licensed from Red Bull, finishing off with a final hour-long session of blissed-out trance-dancing, chanting slowly: "We are the ones;" alternating with: "No Chrome is good Chrome;" and: "No eye candy is the sweetest candy:" while "Kum Bay Yah" played, accompanied by hypnotic drones, in the strobe-lit background.
-
1. There's a lot of talk about MS trying to be more like apple, with Win 8. 2. If you start an apple desktop or laptop, it doesn't open with the iphone GUI. 3. This is a clear demonstration of the creative individuality of MS. They should be proud.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Windows 8 is doing a great job promoting Linux and OSX.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface
You can (grab at top + pull to bottom, ALT+F4 for everything but the start screen, Or on desktop ram mouse to top left, then right-click app and select close) - it's just very badly executed. Typical Microsoft. Somewhen around Windows 11, it will be cool. I guess Microsoft just wanted an App Store like all the other big guys. It's just ... badly executed. Typical Microsoft.
peterchen wrote:
grab at top + pull to bottom
Wow - I just learned a new thing today. Can't say it's particularly obvious though.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Well, I'm still confused, too; and disappointed; how unfortunate that confusion, and disappointment, shared, are not always diluted :) ! On the other hand, this particular disappointment is less, for me, than that of seeing what I believed to be a remarkable future for Windows Forms disappear into what became the late WPF, SilverLight, etc. I have yet to own any touch-driven device, except a cheap knock-off mobile phone from China that's running (I'm pretty sure) a kind of iPhone4-like "UI veneer" over Android. And that, I use only for telephone calls, for which it's surprisingly useful, and easy to use. So, I haven't yet had the "tablet moment," which I can see is important in your essay here. Perhaps without having had the experience of using a small form-factor device to go on-line frequently, while traveling around, I may be "blind" to the point you are making about transit via tablet to new "desktop," rather than via "phone." But, if you'll excuse me for interpreting the gist of your comments as an argument for "one Windows, many skins" (a "vision" that makes perfect sense to me): well, I do find that idea a compelling "backboard" off which to bounce speculations about how Enterprise/Redmond bought into a bad batch of dilithium crystals, and got stuck in low-earth orbit. ... begin rant ... tag-line: "This is not your granddad's old mobile." For myself, I've found it hard to believe that "Modern" ... aka the whatever formerly known as "Metro" ... is a "design language," a "user interface design philosophy," or, anything, other than a kind of grandiose "cultish hive-mind" product of Microsoft's sending a misled (Sinofsky, now cast-into-outta-MS darkness, cast as "Svengali," or "Rasputin" ?) group of people off into a "virtual wilderness" in a state (I imagine) of apocalyptic paranoia, mesmerized (by sensory deprivation ?) into thinking they had to "save the company," gathering daily for hours-long sessions of screaming in rage: "Apple's venomous fangs are poised to strike;" alternating with: "Evil emasculating bitch Android wants Ballmer's balls." Then, exhausted of frenzy, re-fueled on Microsoft's own secret sauce (internally referred to by the code-words "kool-aid"), licensed from Red Bull, finishing off with a final hour-long session of blissed-out trance-dancing, chanting slowly: "We are the ones;" alternating with: "No Chrome is good Chrome;" and: "No eye candy is the sweetest candy:" while "Kum Bay Yah" played, accompanied by hypnotic drones, in the strobe-lit background.
Wouldn't it have been easier to stick with Windows 7 like I did?