So, a lotta you hate Windows 8...

[Dot Matrix]

Which is what most users using a computer use... I want a mouse UI, I want a UI designed around the mouse, not a UI that *works* with a mouse.

I think the greater computer world is moving away from the mouse. When you think about it, the mouse is highly inefficient anymore on higher resolution displays. There comes a point where UI elements have to be sized up to accommodate these screens. There are also touch screens coming into mainstream, another user commented that Windows 7 is lost on these computers, and I agree. Adding Metro now sets up Microsoft for the next 15 or so years of computer evolution. I can guarantee by then, the mouse will be highly depreciated, even on desktops.

[techguy77]

Windows 95 UI was step forward from Windows 3.1 UI. Windows 8 UI is step backwards from what we have now. Mouse is more efficient tool than any gesture because nothing beats mouse in term of being precise especially in higher resolutions.

[techguy77]

The Start Screen provides a way for you to see all of that information on one screen, due to what can be shown on tiles.That's the beauty of it. You could have your Start Screen up on one screen, with all of that, and then another screen free for a couple of applications.

No you don't see all the information. I would still have to scroll. It is much easier to navigate through Start Menu. What MS needed to do with Windows 8 is to keep Windows 7 interface, and introduce concept of virtual desktop and virtual start menu.

[firey]

The Start Screen provides a way for you to see all of that information on one screen, due to what can be shown on tiles.That's the beauty of it. You could have your Start Screen up on one screen, with all of that, and then another screen free for a couple of applications.

I can also have Gadgets on my second screen that show me all this information, while leaving the rest of the second monitor free for more windows. I can do the same on single monitor.

Explain to me why a full screen display is better than having a couple things that provide the same detailed information off to the side of the screen leaving the rest full useable with no loss of the information.

I think the greater computer world is moving away from the mouse. When you think about it, the mouse is highly inefficient anymore on higher resolution displays. There comes a point where UI elements have to be sized up to accommodate these screens. There are also touch screens coming into mainstream, another user commented that Windows 7 is lost on these computers, and I agree. Adding Metro now sets up Microsoft for the next 15 or so years of computer evolution. I can guarantee by then, the mouse will be highly depreciated, even on desktops.

Not everyone has a touch screen, nor is everyone getting one. I find a mouse to be far more precise than my finger, I find that I have a hell of a time touching the right spot on a touchscreen, whereas I nail it every time with a mouse. Again certain things work better for different people.

[techguy77]

Just give it time to mature. We know little to nothing about the Release Preview or Windows 9. I'll bet by that time most will be like "Classic what?".

There is nothing to mature about Metro. It is a wrong interface for PC.

[Dot Matrix]

Windows 95 UI was step forward from Windows 3.1 UI. Windows 8 UI is step backwards from what we have now. Mouse is more efficient tool than any gesture because nothing beats mouse in term of being precise especially in higher resolutions.

But when the UI elements continue to grow in size, what kind of precision do you still need? Any way you look at it, the mouse is loosing focus. I think it would be pretty cool to have a mouse-less PC that was controlled with a combination of keyboard, touch, and motion. The mouse is limiting desktop innovation.

[firey]

But when the UI elements continue to grow in size, what kind of precision do you still need? Any way you look at it, the mouse is loosing focus. I think it would be pretty cool to have a mouse-less PC that was controlled with a combination of keyboard, touch, and motion. The mouse is limiting desktop innovation.

They grow in size because there was a huge touch screen hype, so a lot of peopel bought them, then were mad that they couldn't touch everything correctly. And I'd rather click once, then tap the screen 10x because I can't get the stupid X to click with a touch. The mouse in not limiting desktop innovation in any way.

The change in technology, and companies wanting to merge multiple devices and structures into one limits the innovation. I'm sorry but a bunch of boxes on a screen is hardly innovating.

However.. maybe the Windows 8 interface is a trick. They will come out with a new Windows 7 interface, completely refreshed for Windows 9, and everyone will cheer and thing MS is god-like. They are clearing the slate with Windows 8, so expectations and hopes fall, and people forget how awesome W7's interface is, so any improvement interface wise for W9 will be way more than if it had gone directly from Windows 7.

[techguy77]

But when the UI elements continue to grow in size, what kind of precision do you still need? Any way you look at it, the mouse is loosing focus. I think it would be pretty cool to have a mouse-less PC that was controlled with a combination of keyboard, touch, and motion. The mouse is limiting desktop innovation.

No matter how big UI element is Mouse is still the most efficient way to click on things. Why we would need UI element to grow, that is just stupid. The reason i own 27" LCD (soon 30") screen is to have UI elements look smaller not bigger. I don't want UI which will make my 27" look like i am on 18" with regular desktop. I don't want dirty LCD screen. Motion and touch work in environment with no monitor -> virtual reality otherwise idea MS is trying to bring to PC over 10 years and every time ends up with failure.

[ThePitt]

thats so 2000 late...

[Nick H. Supervisor]

But when the UI elements continue to grow in size, what kind of precision do you still need?

Right, but you're arguing a chicken and egg scenario. You're saying that precision isn't needed anymore because icons are getting larger, but others argue that icons are getting larger to compensate for the lack of precision you have when using your fingers compared to a mouse.

[farmeunit]

Of course I want an actual computer :s I just realise that there is no need to have many apps open on the screen at any one time, and I'm also well aware from experience that such a way of working becomes cumbersome and messy, yet because the option is there, I naturally allow myself to follow that cumbersome way of working. The Desktop mode is just too cumbersome and annoying to use all round. It isn't hard to use, the user experience is just annoying, compared to what the Windows 8 Metro experience offers.

Actually sometime there is a need to have many apps open. I work at a school and when doing state reporting and exporting/importing students into eDirectory or any other program, I'll using several different things all at the same time. That would be a mess with Metro.

[Dot Matrix]

No matter how big UI element is Mouse is still the most efficient way to click on things. Why we would need UI element to grow, that is just stupid. The reason i own 27" LCD (soon 30") screen is to have UI elements look smaller not bigger. I don't want UI which will make my 27" look like i am on 18" with regular desktop. I don't want dirty LCD screen. Motion and touch work in environment with no monitor -> virtual reality otherwise idea MS is trying to bring to PC over 10 years and every time ends up with failure.

Define "efficient". It takes less time to move our arms or touch an element than it does to mouse through everything, even less time to use the keyboard where your hands are anyways. Also, when our monitors DPI gets to a point where it's impossible to discern all those small UI elements, then what are you gonna do? Those old 9x elements are never going to scale up. Eventually, they'll be replaced by bigger ones that are easier to see and read.

[+virtorio MVC]

But when the UI elements continue to grow in size, what kind of precision do you still need? Any way you look at it, the mouse is loosing focus. I think it would be pretty cool to have a mouse-less PC that was controlled with a combination of keyboard, touch, and motion. The mouse is limiting desktop innovation.

It sounds to me like you want a tablet, not a PC. Having to constantly hold my arm out and touch my screen to select text, cells in worksheet or design a UI in Visual Studio sounds like the most inefficient way to do pretty much anything.

You also sound like a Microsoft rep is full spin mode - "limiting desktop innovation" - what a load of s**t. Creating a UI paradigm and don't even work well with desktop hardware is what is going to limit desktop innovation.

[Dot Matrix]

Right, but you're arguing a chicken and egg scenario. You're saying that precision isn't needed anymore because icons are getting larger, but others argue that icons are getting larger to compensate for the lack of precision you have when using your fingers compared to a mouse.

Yes, but also elements are getting larger for the hard to see. But at what point does it become detrimental to keep around those 16x16 or 32x32 icons? The old static elements that people are clinging to are never going to scale up, so why not just replace them with clearer, easier to see and read, elements that *will* scale to anything you throw at it? Metro does that.

[Dot Matrix]

It sounds to me like you want a tablet, not a PC. Having to constantly hold my arm out and touch my screen to select text, cells in worksheet or design a UI in Visual Studio sounds like the most inefficient way to do pretty much anything. You also sound like a Microsoft rep is full spin mode - "limiting desktop innovation" - what a load of s**t. Creating a UI paradigm and don't even work well with desktop hardware is what is going to limit desktop innovation.

Uh, no. But just put it this way, in the movies and TV shows set in the future, do you still see people humorously throwing a mouse around their screens or workstations? Think about the computers seen in "Minority Effect", "Avatar", and the LCARS interface seen in "Star Trek". Any mice there? We're not going to get there mindlessly clinging onto the mouse. So, yes, it does limit innovation.

[McKay]

Windows 95 UI was step forward from Windows 3.1 UI. Windows 8 UI is step backwards from what we have now. Mouse is more efficient tool than any gesture because nothing beats mouse in term of being precise especially in higher resolutions.

But at the time there were people saying it was a step back, when 3.1 launched, people said it was a step back from DOS. People say Windows 7 is a stepback from XP. Notice a pattern here?

[+virtorio MVC]

Uh, no. But just put it this way, in the movies and TV shows set in the future, do you still see users throwing a mouse around their screens? Think about the computers seen in "Minority Effect", "Avatar", and the LCARS interface seen in "Star Trek". Any mice there? We're not going to get there mindlessly clinging onto the mouse. So, yes, it does limit innovation.

Wow, really, movies? Software and hardware shown in movies has no basis in reality.

But seeing you brought it up, I don't see anyone doing any actual work (like I mentioned) in movies. Not just because that would be boring, but also because it would be impossible.

[Vice]

Of course I want an actual computer :s I just realise that there is no need to have many apps open on the screen at any one time, and I'm also well aware from experience that such a way of working becomes cumbersome and messy, yet because the option is there, I naturally allow myself to follow that cumbersome way of working. The Desktop mode is just too cumbersome and annoying to use all round. It isn't hard to use, the user experience is just annoying, compared to what the Windows 8 Metro experience offers.

The way I use my PC I want to be able to run many apps at once. I wouldn't have purchased three 30" displays if I didn't want many many apps open at once and visible. Metro dumbs everything down because they want to appeal to people that don't know how to use a computer. That isn't me and that is why I reject everything that Metro represents. It isn't better, it's basic.

[Dot Matrix]

Wow, really, movies? Software and hardware shown in movies has no basis in reality.

But seeing you brought it up, I don't see anyone doing any actual work (like I mentioned) in movies. Not just because that would be boring, but also because it would be impossible.

HA! Where do you think the inspiration came from for all the tech devices you own today? And nothing is impossible. Nothing. These movies will continue to inspire computer designers. So, yes, it is a valid point.

[+virtorio MVC]

HA! Where do you think the inspiration came from for all the tech devices you own today? And nothing is impossible. Nothing. These movies will continue to inspire computer designers. So, yes, it is a valid point.

So how does your "valid" point link back to today and Windows 8 and users still doing work that requires the use of a mouse?

[Dot Matrix]

So how does your "valid" point link back to today and Windows 8 and users still doing work that requires the use of a mouse?

What I'm trying to say is, the mouse is slowly going away. With the introduction of mainstream touch and motion sense, people are going to be using the mouse less and less as Microsoft, Apple, and maybe even Google find a way to integrate these technologies into their operating systems. Microsoft is the first to do so on the desktop. Apple is bound to keep away for a few years as they play into the fears of Windows users like they always do, but they too will follow, I could almost guarantee for OSXI. But once Apple does it, like the lemmings they are, people will "love" it.

[devHead]

You would think so, but he wasn't.

Yeah, I realized afterwards it was a post by Callum!!

[devHead]

I purposely wrote it in a way that would sound sarcastic, haha, but I was actually being serious. There are very good reasons as to why I think the Metro experience's limitations are beneficial to all computer users. As I mention, I believe the current way everyone multitasks with Windows is flawed, and I think the restrictions the Metro experience provide will lead to everyone multitasking in a more efficient manner, helping their productivity while simultaneously improving their overall user experience.

Callum, bro, you're a good guy I'm sure. However, you know what I think?

I think you've lost your mind.

[fix-this!]

Looks ugly and over-complicated in my opinion.

but metro is soo MUCH better right, right? :rolleyes:

[Chris123NT]

Callum, bro, you're a good guy I'm sure. However, you know what I think?

I think you've lost your mind.

LOL :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: