Windows: Say goodbye to the Desktop
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
Here in my Ubuntu household sir, we don't tolerate that sort of crap. I can change from the Ubiquity(Unity) front end to a variety of different window systems,(at least for the time-being), but I don't. Their Unity interface is obviously suitable for touch, yet I find it to be a convenient and easily usable desktop system. Of course, the large amount of free, and very effective, software saved me having to try/buy and spew credit card details everywhere for windows programmes that may or may not do the job. Negatives? Well for one thing, there is no 64-bit version of skype which is easily installable, certainly nothing in the standard store. Another big worry is the new 'Mir' window system, currently it is the default but at the next release it will become the sole platform, which is not sensible considering both my Linux home-boxes have reverted to X underneath. If they haven't got the driver set sorted by April, it could be a real problem. Two weeks may be a long time in politics, but 6 months is not necessarily a long time in open source software. And of course, one must be prepared to be a little adventurous in tweaking your system by tracking down the (freely available) expertise online and solving any minor issues, although this latest cycle (13.10) has proved to be pretty much trouble-free. I keep several Windows installations - a virtual Vista for i-Tunes(which is now unused as the DRM makes buying Apple songs futile) and a trusty XP native box which I fire up every few months. Last time I used that was to integrate my HP printer onto my home WiFi, but I've since discovered that it isn't needed anymore as HP Linux support is excellent. If you ARE any kind of developer, or on a budget, Linux is well worth considering.(Hobby-to-job prospects etc)
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
The article you cited states: "Within a few years, mainstream versions of Windows will be known for their flat, Metro-style and touch-first UIs, and the legacy Windows desktop will be available only via increasingly archaic and uncommon desktop PCs." I think the message isn't that the desktop is going away, but rather that the conventional PC will no longer be mainstream. Tablets are good for consuming content. Other than recording video and audio, tablets are not particularly good at producing content. Apple's iPad, and subsequent tablets by other manufacturers, have significantly cut into laptop and desktop sales. The products we programmers require might become a niche market, but I think that market will be here to stay for quite a while, including the desktop in all operating systems; at least until you can speak to your computer, tell it to solve a problem, and it writes the code!
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
An interesting feature of android is that if you plug a mouse into an android tab (3.0+ IIRC), a cursor is drawn on the screen for it. I haven't tried that on a Win 'ate tab. Does it work there, too? I suppose it could be made to work on itoys (if you were willing to pay circa $199 for a single-button imouse, and didn't need the socket for anything else, like charging).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
I am waiting to see this evolution and how world is going to react. There is no alternative either so either one (Microsoft or people) have to lean towards the other. Let us wait and see who is going to win, windows 8 goes back to windows 7 way or people adapt the windows 8 way. Only time can tell the answer.
-
An interesting feature of android is that if you plug a mouse into an android tab (3.0+ IIRC), a cursor is drawn on the screen for it. I haven't tried that on a Win 'ate tab. Does it work there, too? I suppose it could be made to work on itoys (if you were willing to pay circa $199 for a single-button imouse, and didn't need the socket for anything else, like charging).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I played around with a new Surface Pro 2 last night, with a TypeCover attached. When using the keyboard's trackpad, the mouse cursor did, in fact, appear and, IIRC, it disappeared when fingertips left the trackpad. It's easy to assume that, were a mouse connected to the Surface, the cursor would be persistent and just as easy to assume it would be as ephemeral as the one associated with the trackpad, again assuming that it disappeared when I quit using the trackpad. On the Surface store site, MS does have a Bluetooth mouse offered as one of the accessories, FWIW.
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
It's really "Say goodbye to the Windows Desktop" While the data consumers will be happy, the data generators will have to return to the days of SUN or Silicon Graphics workstations. There will always be workstations of one sort or another because the data generators will demand it. Microsoft made the audacious move to make workstations commodities. They seem to be back-tracking on that decision. I expect Linux to come to the fore to run workstations of the future, much like the various flavors of UNIX ran them in the past. What goes around, comes around.
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
I among many others agree that Windows 8 for a desktop machine in the hands of a developer is a major step backward. I find zero redeeming value in the Windows 8 UI, none whatsoever. I have 3 big monitors, many simultaneous windows and applications open. In fact if I had the resources I could easily fine use for more monitors. Between running multiple editors, device emulators, monitoring tools, etc, it is a challenge to fit even on three screens. I think this Metro UI is idiotic and I hope that someday the industry will awake from this delusion and return to a sensible approach where not one size fits all. I hate Windows 8.
-
I am waiting to see this evolution and how world is going to react. There is no alternative either so either one (Microsoft or people) have to lean towards the other. Let us wait and see who is going to win, windows 8 goes back to windows 7 way or people adapt the windows 8 way. Only time can tell the answer.
I figure people will adapt. Firstly most of the "users" consume media. And that is what the Metro UI is good at. For the more experienced users that create media, the desktop still is and will continue to be available, but only for said "creators". I've been using Windows 8 since it came out, and can't remember the last time I used the metro UI for anything, except for pressing the windows key, typing the app i want to open and press enter. Which is the same exact method I use in Win7 so no changes there. Granted, having to mose the mouse to the corner of the screen is sometimes tedious, specially with a big screen, but it's something i can live with, as I really don't do it that often. I remember the days of the ribbon in the office suite. The IT masses went postal over it. But for the regular consumer, it made sense and made it easier for them to use the basic functions, so they stuck with it. And the "creators" and "supporters" ended up having to adapt.
-
I among many others agree that Windows 8 for a desktop machine in the hands of a developer is a major step backward. I find zero redeeming value in the Windows 8 UI, none whatsoever. I have 3 big monitors, many simultaneous windows and applications open. In fact if I had the resources I could easily fine use for more monitors. Between running multiple editors, device emulators, monitoring tools, etc, it is a challenge to fit even on three screens. I think this Metro UI is idiotic and I hope that someday the industry will awake from this delusion and return to a sensible approach where not one size fits all. I hate Windows 8.
As a media creator, you wouldn't use the Metro UI. Readmy post above. Using windows 8 since it came out, and I rarely touch metro, as I'm always in desktop mode. Besides being faster (sometimes by quite a bit) i find no difference using it in desktop mode. The Metro UI is only used to consume media, and never to develop content. Hence why Windows 8 comes with a desktop mode, for us to develop that content. Thinking you are stuck with only metro is just stupid.
-
As a media creator, you wouldn't use the Metro UI. Readmy post above. Using windows 8 since it came out, and I rarely touch metro, as I'm always in desktop mode. Besides being faster (sometimes by quite a bit) i find no difference using it in desktop mode. The Metro UI is only used to consume media, and never to develop content. Hence why Windows 8 comes with a desktop mode, for us to develop that content. Thinking you are stuck with only metro is just stupid.
I don't anyone is fooled to think Metro is the only interactive mode. But I find the windows 8 desktop mode to be a less productive environment than the windows 7 environment. And I am not simply talking about the Start button/menu. I do use Windows 8 and I can say I don't like it. The metro view keeps wanting to rear its ugly head. I have no issues with this on a tablet or phone platform, only on a big old PC with multiple monitors, keyboard, mouse, etc. In fact if anyone would have asked for my opinion I would have suggested running the Metro Ui 'within' a classic window on the desktop. But they are trying to force metro upon us. It like they feel it is medicine and should be taken and tolerated.
-
I don't anyone is fooled to think Metro is the only interactive mode. But I find the windows 8 desktop mode to be a less productive environment than the windows 7 environment. And I am not simply talking about the Start button/menu. I do use Windows 8 and I can say I don't like it. The metro view keeps wanting to rear its ugly head. I have no issues with this on a tablet or phone platform, only on a big old PC with multiple monitors, keyboard, mouse, etc. In fact if anyone would have asked for my opinion I would have suggested running the Metro Ui 'within' a classic window on the desktop. But they are trying to force metro upon us. It like they feel it is medicine and should be taken and tolerated.
Ed Korsberg wrote:
I don't anyone is fooled to think Metro is the only interactive mode.
You would be surprised. I've had no problems with Windows 8 desktop mode. The way the metro app tries to be the default to open music and picture and video files is annoying, but only for 5 seconds until I change it. Using several monitors also, and I don't see metro anywhere. The only time I see any metro is while pressing the windows key to search for apps, but I only use the keyboard there anyway so it doesn't really matter, and when powering down the pc, and that took some searching. I honestly can't see any usage I've been doin' that suggests this:
Ed Korsberg wrote:
The metro view keeps wanting to rear its ugly head.
Because i never really see it.
-
Here in my Ubuntu household sir, we don't tolerate that sort of crap. I can change from the Ubiquity(Unity) front end to a variety of different window systems,(at least for the time-being), but I don't. Their Unity interface is obviously suitable for touch, yet I find it to be a convenient and easily usable desktop system. Of course, the large amount of free, and very effective, software saved me having to try/buy and spew credit card details everywhere for windows programmes that may or may not do the job. Negatives? Well for one thing, there is no 64-bit version of skype which is easily installable, certainly nothing in the standard store. Another big worry is the new 'Mir' window system, currently it is the default but at the next release it will become the sole platform, which is not sensible considering both my Linux home-boxes have reverted to X underneath. If they haven't got the driver set sorted by April, it could be a real problem. Two weeks may be a long time in politics, but 6 months is not necessarily a long time in open source software. And of course, one must be prepared to be a little adventurous in tweaking your system by tracking down the (freely available) expertise online and solving any minor issues, although this latest cycle (13.10) has proved to be pretty much trouble-free. I keep several Windows installations - a virtual Vista for i-Tunes(which is now unused as the DRM makes buying Apple songs futile) and a trusty XP native box which I fire up every few months. Last time I used that was to integrate my HP printer onto my home WiFi, but I've since discovered that it isn't needed anymore as HP Linux support is excellent. If you ARE any kind of developer, or on a budget, Linux is well worth considering.(Hobby-to-job prospects etc)
Microsoft releases a new version of it's OS and it puts users in a UI-shellshock, it breaks many of their current applications, it near-forces users to need a touch display (are there many touch displays for desktops out there?) and they expect everyone to be happy? Apple releases a new OS and gives it a catchy name, adds tabbed-browsing to their version of Windows Explorer, integrates a map feature into the OS and makes only a few other minor changes, while strengthening the core of the kernel. I use to be a hardcore Windows Developer and lover. I even blogged about it as a young developer and waxed philosophically of how the behemoth of Microsoft loved it's developers and equipped them to make wonderful software for the masses. However, that era has past. I need consistency and nominal updates to the operating system that fix what's broken and, as a result, continues to empower me to make exceptional software for the masses. Sure, you can make the GUI prettier but don't break your OS, at it's core, to do it! Goodbye Microsoft. Our relationship was a good one while it lasted. However, your obsession of breaking new ground at the expense of breaking important OS fundamentals has forced me to search for an alternative.
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
I really find it hard to imagine something like Adobe Photoshop or CorelDraw becoming a Metro app. While Metro has some benefits, IMO it loses the power of the desktop. The Desktop needs to be supported for a good number of years or Windows will fail. Why ? Everyone talks about how mobile is changing everything and that desktop PC's will disappear and everyone will have tablets in the future. I doubt it. What we are seeing is actually different. When I first started writing custom software for businesses in the late 80's (anyone remember CPM ?) and early 90's computers were very expensive. They were considered a business tool, not a consumer product. A cheap PC cost at least $2000 to $3000 ! In time, the cost of computer hardware dropped significantly and especially with globalization (aka. made in china) prices dropped so low that computer now became affordable by the masses. With this began the consumerization of PC's. Everyone could afford a computer, but there was something wrong with this. The average person who bought a PC, understood it very little. I would find myself helping consumers with their computers and they couldn't do simple things (like copy files). In essence, they had too much power in their hands. PC's now were being used as over glorified game machines, web browsers and email tools. Most consumers did not need all the power of the PC nor did they need overly complex software. So many times consumers when buying a PC would be oversold "power machines" by over zealous sales people (you need more ram, need bigger harddrive, need super duper CPU). Then something strange happened. Apple got the idea that consumers needed dedicated devices geared towards ease of use and designed for consumer needs. First it was Ipods/MP3 players and then tablets. Now everyone wants a tablet, something simple, just touch the screen and no need for a mouse or a keyboard. This new generation of computerized devices actually fit the needs of many consumers (light weight, not complex, just buy apps in an app store). So does this mean the end of the PC as we know it ? Does this mean the Desktop is dead ? Absolutely not. Why ? Because of the consumerization of the PC, the market is now dividing itself back towards its origins. PC's were originally intended as business machines, not consumer products. Now that there are consumer products to replace PC's, PC's are falling back to their origin of being a business machine designed to solve business needs. Of course a certain percentage of the PC market will fall to th
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
I've read through all of the replies and I think there is one thing that Microsoft is missing. Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks). Manufacturing, design, development, test and measurement all make heavy use of desktop computers either for the power they provide or the ability to connect to instruments/devices. Not to mention servers. The desktop is a lot more prevalent than most people give credit to. Tablets have their place in these environments (I see a tech walking around a factory with a tablet so he can monitor the processes or, maybe, turn a piece of equipment on or off - by talking to another machine), but they are not the machine that is doing the real work. Offices need a lot of typing for one thing. I constantly have multiple applications open that share data between them. Tablets are definitely not good for those types of applications. I think my point here is that the desktop world is larger than Microsoft appears to be thinking it is. There is room for an OS that adapts to multiple environments. What's that idea? Make the machine do the work of adapting - not the people? What a strange concept - that computers could make our life easier. Rob Cole (Yes, I'm a developer from a time when I had to clarify that I did not do photographs)
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
Developers made Windows what it is today (or was). Piss em off - and they will be off to greener pastures. Who the ____ would want to write C++ low level on a touch screen?!? I think some of these younger MS coders and designers having been playing in la la land too long. Someone should show them what's under the hood. That's right - go ahead and totally destroy what you've spent ages developing... and start from scratch.... we'll have to find an OS that will work for people that actually create applications et al for the OS to become popular. Someone should just pull all source from MS and leave them to play with IE and slabs of glass. Some days I swear it's April Fools.
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
-
I really find it hard to imagine something like Adobe Photoshop or CorelDraw becoming a Metro app. While Metro has some benefits, IMO it loses the power of the desktop. The Desktop needs to be supported for a good number of years or Windows will fail. Why ? Everyone talks about how mobile is changing everything and that desktop PC's will disappear and everyone will have tablets in the future. I doubt it. What we are seeing is actually different. When I first started writing custom software for businesses in the late 80's (anyone remember CPM ?) and early 90's computers were very expensive. They were considered a business tool, not a consumer product. A cheap PC cost at least $2000 to $3000 ! In time, the cost of computer hardware dropped significantly and especially with globalization (aka. made in china) prices dropped so low that computer now became affordable by the masses. With this began the consumerization of PC's. Everyone could afford a computer, but there was something wrong with this. The average person who bought a PC, understood it very little. I would find myself helping consumers with their computers and they couldn't do simple things (like copy files). In essence, they had too much power in their hands. PC's now were being used as over glorified game machines, web browsers and email tools. Most consumers did not need all the power of the PC nor did they need overly complex software. So many times consumers when buying a PC would be oversold "power machines" by over zealous sales people (you need more ram, need bigger harddrive, need super duper CPU). Then something strange happened. Apple got the idea that consumers needed dedicated devices geared towards ease of use and designed for consumer needs. First it was Ipods/MP3 players and then tablets. Now everyone wants a tablet, something simple, just touch the screen and no need for a mouse or a keyboard. This new generation of computerized devices actually fit the needs of many consumers (light weight, not complex, just buy apps in an app store). So does this mean the end of the PC as we know it ? Does this mean the Desktop is dead ? Absolutely not. Why ? Because of the consumerization of the PC, the market is now dividing itself back towards its origins. PC's were originally intended as business machines, not consumer products. Now that there are consumer products to replace PC's, PC's are falling back to their origin of being a business machine designed to solve business needs. Of course a certain percentage of the PC market will fall to th
Just to follow up on my post. This is why for the last ten years I have been learning how to tap into the WIN32 API in a way where I can leverage both the old and the new. Rather than always designing apps for the latest version of Windows (and then it can't run on older versions), instead I find ways to make software run on both. One of the beauties of the WIN32 API is a simple technique of loading DLL's dynamically (LoadLibrary), then poll the DLL to see whether an API exists and if it does use a new feature and if it does not, then fall back and use something all versions of Windows contain instead. There are also many power features in Windows, which have existed since Windows 95, but many programmers may take advantage of them. For example, the Windows DIB API's are very powerful and allow one to build heavy duty graphic features, which don't require any special hardware and which can run on all versions of Windows. Simply put, programmers need to push the limits of the desktop further than they have in the past. Software needs to be dynamic, changing based on the needs. Run an app on XP and an app works like normal, expecting a mouse and keyboard. Run it on Windows 8, then it should check for touch, dynamically change to accomodate tablets and mobile devices. Autoscaling whould be built into the apps so it knows how to redesign itself intelligently based on the DPI and the device type. In essence programmers need to design smarter software, which can tap into the power of the desktop and shine even on Windows 8. This is one of the reasons the Intel/Lenovo app contest is so exciting ! They want to see what we can do with the desktop. They want to see if programmers can push the limits of the desktop further, taking advantages of newer PC's and devices.
-
An interesting feature of android is that if you plug a mouse into an android tab (3.0+ IIRC), a cursor is drawn on the screen for it. I haven't tried that on a Win 'ate tab. Does it work there, too? I suppose it could be made to work on itoys (if you were willing to pay circa $199 for a single-button imouse, and didn't need the socket for anything else, like charging).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
On Windows RT you can plug in a mouse and a keyboard. I have used a mouse with my Surface RT, I have the TypeCover so I haven't bothered plugging in a keyboard. For the the Surface RT is a consumption device despite the fact that I can use office on it. Obviously if you get a tablet that runs full Windows (Surface Pro or others) you are only limited by the ports available on the device. You can plug in a mouse, a keyboard, USB headset, multiple monitors etc etc.
-
A story that makes me feel that I now have to buy hardware according to which OS sucks the least. Microsoft Moving to Redefine Windows[^] Paul Thurrott is an interesting commentator in that he can be particularly outspoken on stupidity and poor decision making (when it comes to the satisfying the consumer) in the IT industry. He's particularly vocal in his distaste in most things Apple, preferring to focus on the bad instead of the good, but on Microsoft he treads a very careful line in his criticisms - possibly to protect his cherished access to their inner circle - so it's hard to know where he stands on this one. In a nutshell: Desktop mode in Windows will go and Metro will rule. Desktop will become the new Terminal Window: a tool for those who need deeper access than the Windows GUI can provide, and de-emphasised to the point of being hidden out of view. There will be one Windows To Rule Them All: on phones, on tablets, and on (as he says) the increasingly archaic desktop. It will be the same Windows with the same apps and drivers across all devices. Which is fine: The Holy Grail of Operating Systems (and software development) is the one platform on all devices, and it's obviously the direction the industry will, and must, go. However, does this mean that I will do all my input using touch? Does this mean that my PC - a tool I use to input and create - will have the same UI focus and experience as a phone that is primarily a device for consuming, not creating, content? I need to get on my soapbox here. I know this discussion has been had a million times since the release of Windows 8 but I am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply do not work with one (or at max two) windows open at once, taking up the entire screen. I find UIs where you have to hover carefully for a period in unmarked areas to get access to features to slow me down. Having to click (or drag) from the very the top of the screen all the way down to the bottom to close an app? Since when were 'close' buttons truly that awful? Features such as usability, the frustration of confusion of feature discovery and the forcing of users into a window management paradigm that simply doesn't fit the way many need t
METRO ===== My take on Metro is that it is primarily designed to be the gateway to the devices and service vision Microsoft has to protect/regain their dominant position in the Software market-place. I am not sure it has anything to do with what is better for the user. Not all systems are primarily used for entertainment or social networking. I do think that a touch-screen is appropriate for many user applications, e.g. Retail POS, if the screen real-estate is realistic. Think of one of the millions of accountants using touch-screen to do entries each day. That should slow the financial world down by an order of magnitude or so. For developers the mouse and keyboard seems mandatory to me. The idea that we will be required to work as we are told rather than we have alternatives is repugnant to me. The amount of Metro push-back I read about makes me feel that I am far the only one thinking this. I realize that different levels of development effort are implied if Microsoft does it all. But maybe that is not necessary. There are lots of talented devlopers that can create products to augment/enhance a Microsoft OS. Microsoft should be encouraged to make sure the necessary APIs and other tools are continually made available. In short, let's keep the Mouse and the tactile keyboard for those that need/prefer them. THE CLOUD ========= I am a cloud skeptic still. There is no doubt that it is coming like a freight-train. The reliabilty, privacy, and security issues trouble me. In a business setting (my primary interest) I am very uncomfortable with these issues. There seems to be article afer article supporting this. The cloud is a hackers dream. The cloud is their underground YouTube, their piggy-bank, etc. The future seems to destined to be phablets and cloud servers. The future seems to be 5 years from now at the most. I am not sure we will be happy we went there. The software and information companies are already replacing the Cable companies. The monopoly and consumer-marginalization characteristics of Cable companies was never my preference. I guess this is a bit of a rant, but that is where I am at on these issues.
"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"