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
What is the desktop used for? A picture and a lot of clickable icons to launch programs. Most computers I see are cluttered with Icons on the Desktop. I like win 8 because it takes the most used feature (IMO) of windows --- Launching an app by clicking on the desktop. Now there is a managed way to have that feature, the "Start Screen". The start menu was for power users. The start screen is for newbie and power user. Metro apps will get better once everyone stops complaining and actually let Microsoft know what will make "Metro" better. Dear Microsoft, Please make metro better by (sorry I refer to is as metro but it the only way I know you know what I am talking about) 1) Since file access is limited to developers give metro a full featured file explorer/picker/saver/opener similar to the desktop version with a panel on the left with favorites, network, etc... and different views List, Detail, Thumbnail..... 2) Letting multiple apps snap side by side is good. Next Make them Snap side by side and top to bottom for a fully customizable screen experience. 3)To ease everyone's gripping please let power users have floating metro windows in metro mode. I know its not the direction you wanted for metro but make it a hidden option so power users will stop their griping. If you only make it an option for certain screen sizes or multiple monitors that will cut down on the potential people getting confused about this feature.
-
rcole117 wrote:
Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks).
When commentators speak of "the death of the PC" I don't think they actually mean that desktop-style interaction will go. I think they mean the big clunky beige box. My take on Surface is that Microsoft wants you to own a Surface Pro as your desktop. You carry it around, you use it at home, on the train, everywhere, and when you come into the office you pop it in its dock and it becomes your desktop. Think of it as the evolution of the laptop. It's a brilliant idea and it will happen. They just tried to fly before they could walk.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Maybe I'm not as eloquent as I should be to express the ideas bubbling through my mind. There are many excellent points in previous posts (including yours) that state how the applications and the OS should adapt to the environment (read: machine they are running on) and I heartily agree. Despite the fact that I consider myself a power user who is split between developing applications and building 3D graphics and animations (for which I do prefer the big clunky beige box with its amazing power, multiple monitors and multiple graphics cards), I can see that easier to use systems would benefit a majority of users. Until such time as the tablets can perform to the same level as the computers I currently use (and yes, I believe this increase in capability will happen) and business/industry adopts them in a BIG way, the support for all of the possible uses should continue. I know it's easier to support if you can get everyone into the same box, but there are a lot of us "individuals" out here and as many uses for the computers as there are users (almost). I know that industrial computers (rack mounted, big, clunky boxes) are already a niche market and they will not be going away soon. Not until you can connect scads of instruments to a computer without having to add a number of internal cards (USB, Wifi, other RF are still not fast enough for a lot of applications). Alright, kind of random thoughts there, but it's the way I feel. I'm not a stick-in-the-mud but I prefer my tools to be able to do what I want to do and not change what I do because the tools do things differently. Rob Cole Computerized Industrial Test and Measurement Proponent
-
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
Chris Maunder wrote:
am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be considered a sensible direction
It isn't a sensible direction for us, the users. It is the only direction Microsoft can see for us users, that leads to a Microsoft company down the road. They need us users to feel so comfortable on their OS on all platforms, that we pull them along with us onto all the devices we want to use. The desktop was tried on small touchscreen devices and it doesn't work, hence Metro. Metro isn't optimal for desktop system users, but it can work there. Microsoft is panicking and apparently doesn't feel they have the time to give us all a transition OS version, hence the strongarm tactics to force all their users to switch to Metro. Think of Microsoft like a scared and panicked 800 pound gorilla.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
I had a reaction of almost horror when I first encountered the Metro UI. I am still on W7 and will remain on it until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead grasp. I also retain an old Dell laptop with XP SP3 and Office 2003 that I still use occasionally for writing. My guess is that the Microsoft developers themselves will lead the push to make desktop product development (and by extension content production and data entry) a priority again. If, as many seem to be saying, the Metro UI is anathema to these tasks, then the Microsoft developers would have been, or will be, at the bleeding edge of that experience and they will have an impact on the trajectory of the Windows UI experience. Their own productivity may well demand redress. My spouse uses an older MacBook Air (I am not familiar with the latest Mac laptop UI) that she purchased in 2010 and it has Mac OS X Snow Leopard on it. That operating system UI is windowed and not touch-centric like the UI on the iPads and iPods of the time. I could be wrong, but it seems even Apple recognized that there was no one-UI-style-fits-all path. (Just a SWAG on my part.) I'm with you on this Chris. I think the pendulum has swung too far one way, and that it WILL swing back. The Start button has returned, right? A clue? Interesting days ahead. Mike PS. Any relation to the Maunders Food Shop in Aurora? My daughter used to live off Wellington.
Cheers, Mike Fidler
The start button in 8.1 is just a button. It's not the in-place program search or quick list of commonly used programs that it was. Window-X gives you quick links to lots of fun stuff - but show me a mum-or-dad user who knows about that? No relation to the Maunders in Aurora but I'm sure I ride past their place fairly regularly, and I'm positive they are fine, upstanding, intelligent and shockingly good-looking members of the community.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
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.
> Firstly most of the "users" consume media. And that is what the Metro UI is good at. The thing is, most people that consume media are moving away from the desktop to tablets and phones. The desktop as it stands will become a more niche player for developers largely. I know a lot of people, developers mostly, that have multiple platforms for different use cases. They have a desktop for work, a smartphone for mobile, a tablet for portable work (like taking notes) and media consumption. A lot of people that have historically had a desktop at home use it for email, media etc. and because it was their only option. Most people who wish to do this kind of thing are realising that space, power and cost of a desktop for this use case is unreasonable. Metro for desktop use is, in the main, a waste of time. Those that like it will more and more *not* be using desktops.
-
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.
> Because i never really see it. And this is the key point. What you're basically saying is that you find Metro fine because you can switch it off. So, other than some performance enhancements in Windows 8, which are always welcome, what is the point in Metro really on a desktop? The reality is that people don't want to consume media sat in front of a desktop. They would much rather either sit in the living room with a TV connected to a media server or use a tablet where it is comfortable and convenient. People sit in front of desktops to do work. There is no logical reason why one UI should be used for both. It makes sense for the OSes to interact seamlessly with each other, but trying to stitch Metro and desktop UIs together in the same box is pure madness.
-
> Firstly most of the "users" consume media. And that is what the Metro UI is good at. The thing is, most people that consume media are moving away from the desktop to tablets and phones. The desktop as it stands will become a more niche player for developers largely. I know a lot of people, developers mostly, that have multiple platforms for different use cases. They have a desktop for work, a smartphone for mobile, a tablet for portable work (like taking notes) and media consumption. A lot of people that have historically had a desktop at home use it for email, media etc. and because it was their only option. Most people who wish to do this kind of thing are realising that space, power and cost of a desktop for this use case is unreasonable. Metro for desktop use is, in the main, a waste of time. Those that like it will more and more *not* be using desktops.
True, but remember that Windows 8 is their first step in a unified OS. Meaning, the same OS in a tablet, desktop or mobile, will need to have the Metro UI for consumers, but will still have desktop for developers. Because even in tablets, like the surface, the consumers will mainly see Metro UI. But since the OS will be the same everywhere, there still needs be the desktop, so that the creators can just plug in a keyboard and do their thing.
-
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
This is it exactly. Most people who have a desktop do because that was their only option. They sit in the corner of a room with their own desk, they need power, often they are noisy and they're not portable. You have to wait a minute or two for it to power up and login to. To a large extent, a desktop for mundane family tasks are odious and an inconvenience. I'm a developer so we have a powerful machine at home that the family has come to use over time. My wife now has a tablet which she uses in preference to the desktop. My son has a smartphone which does most of what he wants. That is the pattern that we are seeing all over the place. Eventually, I will be the only user of the desktop as it was many years ago.
-
> Because i never really see it. And this is the key point. What you're basically saying is that you find Metro fine because you can switch it off. So, other than some performance enhancements in Windows 8, which are always welcome, what is the point in Metro really on a desktop? The reality is that people don't want to consume media sat in front of a desktop. They would much rather either sit in the living room with a TV connected to a media server or use a tablet where it is comfortable and convenient. People sit in front of desktops to do work. There is no logical reason why one UI should be used for both. It makes sense for the OSes to interact seamlessly with each other, but trying to stitch Metro and desktop UIs together in the same box is pure madness.
The point is that it needs to be there, for the consumers. As I said before, this is their first step in a unified OS. Meaning it will be the same OS in desktops/tablets/mobiles. This will allow to adapt your device to you, no matter what device it is. For example, 2 people use the surface tablet. User nº 1 is a media consumer. He/she will only see the metro UI. On the other hand, user nº2, is a media developer. He can just grab the same exact device, plugin the keyboard, and switch to desktop mode to do whatever they want. On the same exact device and OS. That is exactly the point on having both modes on the same OS. One OS, one device, and you can use it however you want it, either to consume or to create. Yes, desktops are moving more and more to a niche market of content creation. But even on the surface tablet, having the desktop mode for quick work, is a god send.
-
The point is that it needs to be there, for the consumers. As I said before, this is their first step in a unified OS. Meaning it will be the same OS in desktops/tablets/mobiles. This will allow to adapt your device to you, no matter what device it is. For example, 2 people use the surface tablet. User nº 1 is a media consumer. He/she will only see the metro UI. On the other hand, user nº2, is a media developer. He can just grab the same exact device, plugin the keyboard, and switch to desktop mode to do whatever they want. On the same exact device and OS. That is exactly the point on having both modes on the same OS. One OS, one device, and you can use it however you want it, either to consume or to create. Yes, desktops are moving more and more to a niche market of content creation. But even on the surface tablet, having the desktop mode for quick work, is a god send.
You may or may not be true, but the OP is talking about desktops. Most people take this to mean the big box that doesn't have batteries. It is a powerful machine use primarily to develop. The principal use case for this is development and not media consumption. I do sometimes use Netflix on my desktop, but more and more, I use the Smart TV down stairs, it's much nicer and more convenient. Touch screen tablets that can be used as desktops sometimes by adding hardware are blurring the boundaries between the conventional form factors and I think this is a good thing. Having to "make do" with something because your ideal platform doesn't exist is something that we are seeing less and less of. But I think that the economics of computing is actually turning people is a different direction from where Surface is heading. Computers are becoming more and more cheap commodity items. So people will increasingly have different devices for different use cases. There will be no need to have a device that fits all of your use cases. People already have phones, tablets, laptops, smart TVs and (maybe) desktops because we can. We do at home and we are far from rare. I just don't think there is a future for a do-it-all device. Certainly, I think the market bears this out.
-
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
IMO, after using Windows 8 since the initial release, I see an issue with a distinct separation between desktop and tablet UIs. I find that, being a 'producer' and not a 'consumer' I spend most of my time in the desktop UI and the Metro UI can get in the way. They should certainly keep the new Metro style, as it's easier to look at, put simply. But I think it would be good for everyone all around if they would release a Desktop Edition and a Tablet Edition separately, where the Desktop version is significantly different than the Tablet version. I think this would easily satisfy both developers (producers) and users (consumers) needs. Alternatively, they can offer two modes of Windows, but I think this would be inefficient. Also, they could simply make improvements to the Metro UI to ease it's use as a development/creation tool. Either way, the current iteration isn't what most people are looking for. Tablet users generally want all metro with no desktop, developers want their desktop back with no metro UI. Though most, like me, do like the newer style, the UI is broken as a development UI. I don't think the desktop will even come close to dying off in the near future, I think desktops will remain roughly the same as tablets and smartphones continue to grow.
-
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 think the move to the Metro UI was a good choice from the consumers point of view, the problem is that they forced this into everyone, whether you like/want it or not. Unfortunately for Microsoft, doing two separate OSs would have been far riskier for the consumer side of the business given that both Apple and Google had a good head start on this (see how Windows Phone fares so far).
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
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 does not matter if it makes sense or what users think. MS is monopoly that wants to impose their masters vision on people in order to retain and increase control over how people use computers. Multiple windows with easy flexible navigation puts you in control. That is not what they want. You have to spend minimum of X ms or sec totally immersed on news page or ad (research) so they can get their message through. The problem is that we go through pages selectively, too quick and discount parts that are of no interest to us. In addition we trained ourselves to ignore advertisement boxes, stupid or propaganda news and this drives media and advertisers crazy because they spent money and time with no effect. Each of us carved our personal niche on the web and there is no way to gather sheep back unless they force it upon us. Modern UI is the biggest Trojan horse in software ever. They do not like "personal" in PC. They have enough programmers offshore and are not interested in local competition and independent developers. The platform is closed. Use the device as you should - as interactive TV with brain-hand reflex controlled interaction; this is the future of computing.
-
It does not matter if it makes sense or what users think. MS is monopoly that wants to impose their masters vision on people in order to retain and increase control over how people use computers. Multiple windows with easy flexible navigation puts you in control. That is not what they want. You have to spend minimum of X ms or sec totally immersed on news page or ad (research) so they can get their message through. The problem is that we go through pages selectively, too quick and discount parts that are of no interest to us. In addition we trained ourselves to ignore advertisement boxes, stupid or propaganda news and this drives media and advertisers crazy because they spent money and time with no effect. Each of us carved our personal niche on the web and there is no way to gather sheep back unless they force it upon us. Modern UI is the biggest Trojan horse in software ever. They do not like "personal" in PC. They have enough programmers offshore and are not interested in local competition and independent developers. The platform is closed. Use the device as you should - as interactive TV with brain-hand reflex controlled interaction; this is the future of computing.
The days of Microsoft being a monopoly are long gone.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
What is the desktop used for? A picture and a lot of clickable icons to launch programs. Most computers I see are cluttered with Icons on the Desktop. I like win 8 because it takes the most used feature (IMO) of windows --- Launching an app by clicking on the desktop. Now there is a managed way to have that feature, the "Start Screen". The start menu was for power users. The start screen is for newbie and power user. Metro apps will get better once everyone stops complaining and actually let Microsoft know what will make "Metro" better. Dear Microsoft, Please make metro better by (sorry I refer to is as metro but it the only way I know you know what I am talking about) 1) Since file access is limited to developers give metro a full featured file explorer/picker/saver/opener similar to the desktop version with a panel on the left with favorites, network, etc... and different views List, Detail, Thumbnail..... 2) Letting multiple apps snap side by side is good. Next Make them Snap side by side and top to bottom for a fully customizable screen experience. 3)To ease everyone's gripping please let power users have floating metro windows in metro mode. I know its not the direction you wanted for metro but make it a hidden option so power users will stop their griping. If you only make it an option for certain screen sizes or multiple monitors that will cut down on the potential people getting confused about this feature.
The answer is NO. We want your full attention to news and ads so you cannot ignore them. We will deliver targeted content according to your psychological profile. We will train your brain-hand reflex response to content so you will react to it mechanically. We like your profile already. You get easily fooled.
-
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 must say, I like Windows 8 more than I thought I would. I haven't been using it for very long, in fact it was under 2 weeks ago when I went out and bought a new laptop, but I've got used to it and did so pretty quickly. When I first heard that 8.1 would allow you to boot straight to the desktop I thought that it was a great idea and that I'd instantly set it when I upgraded but here I am using the start screen more and more. There's no denying that Windows 8 was an operating system built for touch. My experience has been helped by the fact that the touch pad allows me to use gestures and I'm glad that it does. I think it still needs some work to make it easily usable for desktops, but it's definitely better than I thought it would be.
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."
-
> Because i never really see it. And this is the key point. What you're basically saying is that you find Metro fine because you can switch it off. So, other than some performance enhancements in Windows 8, which are always welcome, what is the point in Metro really on a desktop? The reality is that people don't want to consume media sat in front of a desktop. They would much rather either sit in the living room with a TV connected to a media server or use a tablet where it is comfortable and convenient. People sit in front of desktops to do work. There is no logical reason why one UI should be used for both. It makes sense for the OSes to interact seamlessly with each other, but trying to stitch Metro and desktop UIs together in the same box is pure madness.
One UI will keep people more focused on content consuming with less chance of escaping media and advertisers message. Until now you had a choice; they do not get your full attention because you have a peek at news on separate windows just for a moment; too short to embed the message or ad in your brain and you already trained yourself how to navigate web to avoid content of no interest to you. And that's where Metro comes in. It is not meant for user enjoyment or productivity but rather as a convenience for media and advertisers. It is backed by research on web usage patterns and user reaction based on individual psychological profile; the preferred way is to train brain-hand reflex on touch screen to control that interaction better.
-
I must say, I like Windows 8 more than I thought I would. I haven't been using it for very long, in fact it was under 2 weeks ago when I went out and bought a new laptop, but I've got used to it and did so pretty quickly. When I first heard that 8.1 would allow you to boot straight to the desktop I thought that it was a great idea and that I'd instantly set it when I upgraded but here I am using the start screen more and more. There's no denying that Windows 8 was an operating system built for touch. My experience has been helped by the fact that the touch pad allows me to use gestures and I'm glad that it does. I think it still needs some work to make it easily usable for desktops, but it's definitely better than I thought it would be.
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."
You understand that by using Metro UI you are interactive TV consumer gesturing like a monkey to the targeted content they pushing to you, right?
-
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.
Ed Korsberg wrote:
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.
It's hard to say whether the thing is going to make it or not but to folks like us it's clearly not going anywhere. I can see it fulfilling a purpose in the tablet space (similar to iOS), but you're not going to see the desktop environment go away. It may not be as visible out there, and that's OK. Microsoft and anyone else that understands anything realizes that the desktop environment is where REAL work gets done. Yeah, sure, I'm going to design a SQL database or write a software application on a touch Metro style screen. No, that may be the TARGET of a development effort but it's not going to replace the development environment which is a desktop. VS2013 is a DESKTOP app. I'd really like to see MS put it's developer tools into Metro. Yeah, right! Microsoft may be trying to fade the desktop into the background all right, but they're not going to destroy the bread-and-butter here. I believe there will always be some kind of desktop system. It may take a bit to get to it but it will be there and it will continue to be supported. The presence of all this mobile technology does not mean that the MASSIVE ecosystem built around the desktop is going to just roll-over and die. That is unless MS plans to do ALL the development itself or is willing to port ALL of it's development tools into "Metro" and force the developer community there. I think that idea is a bit of a stretch! As for any individual developer, just pick which platform you want to develop to, get the tools and get to work. You can't do everything - don't try to. If you like "Metro" then get VS2013 and get busy. If you don't (like I don't) then do something else. There's a lot of angst over this one which I, personally, think is unecessary.
-
> Because i never really see it. And this is the key point. What you're basically saying is that you find Metro fine because you can switch it off. So, other than some performance enhancements in Windows 8, which are always welcome, what is the point in Metro really on a desktop? The reality is that people don't want to consume media sat in front of a desktop. They would much rather either sit in the living room with a TV connected to a media server or use a tablet where it is comfortable and convenient. People sit in front of desktops to do work. There is no logical reason why one UI should be used for both. It makes sense for the OSes to interact seamlessly with each other, but trying to stitch Metro and desktop UIs together in the same box is pure madness.
Because desktop pc will also become a niche device in the future just like what they're planning with windows desktop. A lot of people now use touch and light and mobile devices, Microsoft's answer to this is the Metro UI. For the developers, they only need to focus on the desktop and it's basically the same thing with some improvements because after all this will be the source to create the Metro UI apps. Besides you will only see the Metro UI when opening something. We are developers so it should be given that we are already familiar with the keyboard shortcuts to access things we want to accomplish.