Windows: Say goodbye to the Desktop
-
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.
-
The days of Microsoft being a monopoly are long gone.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Yeah, that is right; Now you have a choice; good cop bad cop; choose Google or Microsoft
-
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.
Metro UI is closed platform; you cannot install hello world program on your grandma computer any more without going through store, special sideload license or enterprise windows.
-
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.
First check limitations for Metro apps and deployment methods. Metro is closed platform and you cannot do whatever you want. Content is censored by MS among other things like local storage, interaction with other programs etc. This is the future of programming.
-
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
-
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 use metro because I've grown to like it not because Microsoft tells me to. When I first got Windows 8 I thought for sure that I'd use the desktop mode for pretty much everything and avoid the start screen as much as possible. Now that I've started using it I've grown to like it. Where's the harm in that? I don't claim that it isn't without it's downfalls; it's not like I'll defend it with the same enthusiasm of an overly stubborn Mac user. The process of closing metro apps by dragging them to the bottom of the screen doesn't work well without touch for instance. It's also not like I only use the metro mode. I still use the desktop because there are still a lot of things that I need the desktop for. I gave metro a chance and I liked it so if that makes me an "interactive TV consumer gesturing like a monkey to the targeted content they pushing to [me]" then yes, yes I am. I will, however, continue to maintain that it does not.
"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."
-
First check limitations for Metro apps and deployment methods. Metro is closed platform and you cannot do whatever you want. Content is censored by MS among other things like local storage, interaction with other programs etc. This is the future of programming.
Member 10088171 wrote:
First check limitations for Metro apps and deployment methods. Metro is closed platform and you cannot do whatever you want. Content is censored by MS among other things like local storage, interaction with other programs etc. This is the future of programming.
Maybe so. If that's the case then I'm just going to fade back and stay where I am for the duration. I've been at this for 37 years and am content supporting a large enterprise application and developing small customized systems that revolve around the desktop. I'm finding plenty to do. If it dries up then I guess I'll hang my hat and go drive a bus or something. I don't need to keep up with all this stuff anymore. Plenty to do back here in the dungeon! It's not worth stressing over. :)
-
I use metro because I've grown to like it not because Microsoft tells me to. When I first got Windows 8 I thought for sure that I'd use the desktop mode for pretty much everything and avoid the start screen as much as possible. Now that I've started using it I've grown to like it. Where's the harm in that? I don't claim that it isn't without it's downfalls; it's not like I'll defend it with the same enthusiasm of an overly stubborn Mac user. The process of closing metro apps by dragging them to the bottom of the screen doesn't work well without touch for instance. It's also not like I only use the metro mode. I still use the desktop because there are still a lot of things that I need the desktop for. I gave metro a chance and I liked it so if that makes me an "interactive TV consumer gesturing like a monkey to the targeted content they pushing to [me]" then yes, yes I am. I will, however, continue to maintain that it does not.
"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."
This form of hybrid OS is just testing and training phase of future desktop-less cloud based OS with end user having limited capabilities terminal. There is a chance that to use fully featured desktop OS one will have to obtain non-consumer higher paid version. This will be for enterprises and for 5-10% of power users who can afford it. I have no problem with Win 8 interface but it is useless for me because of the way I use computer but have nothing against people using it as primary interface as long as they know what it is. Consider desktop as temporary add on to Windows. It will be gone sooner than you think. The problem is that Metro UI it is not a choice. It only looks like one for now. Win 8.1 asks you for Microsoft account and puts your files on the cloud if you are not careful; (there are some ways to get out from this option for now); if you check the agreement then you will notice that there is more encroachment on privacy, profiling, targeted content etc. Start button issue is only smoke screen. OS update cycle is 2 years now and they are pressing ahead with their agenda regardless of cost because the government and sponsors will cover the cost of media transformation (almost billion write off for Surface, no problem). The way this transformation is being done already created much needed confusion so monkeys maintain that they are not because it is difficult to realize what is going on (not meant as offense; more like shortcut)
-
Member 10088171 wrote:
First check limitations for Metro apps and deployment methods. Metro is closed platform and you cannot do whatever you want. Content is censored by MS among other things like local storage, interaction with other programs etc. This is the future of programming.
Maybe so. If that's the case then I'm just going to fade back and stay where I am for the duration. I've been at this for 37 years and am content supporting a large enterprise application and developing small customized systems that revolve around the desktop. I'm finding plenty to do. If it dries up then I guess I'll hang my hat and go drive a bus or something. I don't need to keep up with all this stuff anymore. Plenty to do back here in the dungeon! It's not worth stressing over. :)
No need for bus driving; your skills will be in demand on Linux platform; after all old good Windows and Linux have much in common. Please note that closed application deployment is for Metro UI only; desktop app deployment is still the same regardless of Win version.
-
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
The excuse of Surface failure in corporate corridors is that Microsoft is ahead of its time; yes you read it correctly; Microsoft is ahead of the pack :)