99 replies to this topic 2 votes

[theyarecomingforyou]

Dot Matrix, on 11 June 2012 - 02:42, said:

Same way as before? So you're saying bring back the Start Menu and force Microsoft to fail yet again? The worst thing Microsoft can do right now is continue down the desktop only path. The UX on tablets and desktops is meant to be UNIFIED, not two separate experiences. One OS, one UX, to rule them all. That's the top most design principal behind Windows 8. Microsoft wants you, the user, to go from one device seamlessly to the next.

You completely misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that Microsoft bring back the Start Menu, as I think the Start screen is a huge improvement. However, Microsoft should have migrated the shut-down controls to either the Start screen or the new right-click shortcut menu. Hiding it behind the charms bar was simply a bad design decision.

Dot Matrix, on 11 June 2012 - 02:42, said:

Since power is technically a PC setting - I am setting the machine off, or setting the machine to restart - it now appears under the correct category, rather than in "Start". Heck, you don't even NEED to go into the Charms to toggle power options. There are ten billion other ways to shut down or restart your machine.

Brandon Live, on 18 June 2012 - 04:49, said:

Secondly, Start is for launching apps (or switching to them). It wouldn't make sense to jam a setting in there. So it's in the system-wide settings pane with other similar controls (like brightness, airplane mode, etc).

Actually, the Start screen already features a user title that allows you to lock the computer or sign out. It would have been incredibly simply - and logical - to include shut-down options there. Heck, you can even shut down your computer from the lock screen.

Brandon Live, on 18 June 2012 - 04:49, said:

Not at all. I see the "shutdown" menu as a legacy concept from an old world where computers were all desktops and the OS didn't get to handle the power button (i.e. before ACPI power buttons). Nowadays, when people aren't using their computers they shut the lid (laptop), hit a power button (tablet/phone), or walk away (desktop). How often do you actually use that menu, and why? If you stop and think about it, you might just be making more work for yourself.

I use it all the time. I'm well aware that computers can be shut down by simply pressing the power button on your case but it's usually quicker to simply use the mouse (most of the time I'm already holding the mouse anyway) - not only that but my computer is under my desk and I don't particularly like having to lean down to press it when a simply mouse gesture will suffice. And I guarantee I'm far from the only person that shuts down their computer in that way - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if a majority currently shut down their computer from the start menu.

[Mohitster]

because it isn't a good design.

[+Brandon Live]

theyarecomingforyou, on 18 June 2012 - 08:58, said:

I use it all the time. I'm well aware that computers can be shut down by simply pressing the power button on your case but it's usually quicker to simply use the mouse (most of the time I'm already holding the mouse anyway) - not only that but my computer is under my desk and I don't particularly like having to lean down to press it when a simply mouse gesture will suffice. And I guarantee I'm far from the only person that shuts down their computer in that way - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if a majority currently shut down their computer from the start menu.

So this is a desktop. Just curious, why do you shut it down at all?

[shockz]

Brandon Live, on 18 June 2012 - 14:38, said:

So this is a desktop. Just curious, why do you shut it down at all?

On a budget, power bills can get pretty tight. I save an average of 20 bucks a month keeping mine off when not using it.

[+Brandon Live]

shockz, on 18 June 2012 - 14:41, said:

On a budget, power bills can get pretty tight. I save an average of 20 bucks a month keeping mine off when not using it.

Versus just letting it go to sleep? That seems unlikely. But if you're really concerned, you can set it to hibernate instead (which uses no power at all).

[Dot Matrix]

shockz, on 18 June 2012 - 14:41, said:

On a budget, power bills can get pretty tight. I save an average of 20 bucks a month keeping mine off when not using it.

I rent an appt, and I let my machines sleep. The only time they goes off is when there's a storm. My bills are no higher than they would be without my computers here.

My room mate, OTOH, still uses a circa 2001 desktop (w/ CRT) that does more damage to the bills, than any of my systems combined while in sleep mode.

[PGHammer]

GP007, on 14 June 2012 - 08:44, said:

This is so true, the way Win32 is now they'd be hard pressed to make any drastic changes. People want legacy dropped from Windows, they've said this often, and now with WinRT and Metro that's more or less happening. Yet at the same time we now have another group that doesn't want this to happen or just doesn't like it for xyz reasons. In the end Win32 will be replaced, not next year, not in 5 years but it will happen once the new WinRT APIs/Framework gets more mature. Also as it gets more mature we'll see less and less of these "rules" and "limitations" that we see now in Windows 8, which is basically version 1.0 for WinRT.

It's why I referred to Windows 8 (non-RT) as a user-version of a hedge-bet.

I knew right off that WinRT is not even *close* to being fully-matured as an API (it's decidedly the case compared to either Android or iOS).

It's also why I complained that judging Windows 8 on the basis of the sparse populace of WinRT apps would have been as silly as judging the nascent Windows 95 by the lack of Win32 applications.

[PmRd]

remixedcat, on 14 June 2012 - 09:41, said:

I would think that users that cannot see the colors can enable them via accessability settings or a quick menu... imagine if windows shipped with high contrast by default it would turn most people away from using it. windows has always used a neutral palette so as to not make people's eyes hurt when looking at the UI. Metro goes against that and the colors might be too bright or vibrant to make them have migraines.

People are going to have migraines because they are going to look at the start screen all day?

[myxomatosis]

simplezz, on 09 June 2012 - 17:31, said:

Simple. Microsoft can't get anybody to use their Phone or Tablet software on their own merits so they're exploiting their existing desktop monopoly to do it. Microsoft's hoping by forcing everyone to use the same Metro/Tiles/Start Screen interface, they can create a demand and expand the same monopoly to mobile devices.

Will it work? Who knows. It's possible I suppose. But if you compare Windows Mobile to the desktop, it had a lot of similarities, yet it couldn't dominate the market like the desktop version does. This leads me to believe this time around won't be any different.

You're right sir!

[hagjohn]

Take off the apps and it would look a lot like OSX. That's probably why.

[Seketh]

Why are you people talking about the power options yet again? Seriously, it's one extra, insignificant step.

One extra, insignificant step that allows for products such as the Surface. That extra, insignificant step is totally worth it in my opinion.

[myxomatosis]

GP007, on 14 June 2012 - 08:56, said:

Until the tiles start filling in with your data then you understand it's nothing like that silly AOL image with it's static images. It seems people just don't want to admit the fact that the live tiles are more than just icons. It seems like doing so would kill their argument about how silly the start screen is and so on.

I CAN'T wait to install Windows 8 to have live tiles telling me who who posted on Facebook or how hot it is outside!It will CHANGE our lives for the best! So many USEFUL informations! ...

[theyarecomingforyou]

Brandon Live, on 18 June 2012 - 14:38, said:

So this is a desktop. Just curious, why do you shut it down at all?

The same reason most people shut down their computers - a) when required to do so after installing new drivers, b) when required to do so after installing new Windows updates, c) when required to do so after installing new software, and d) when leaving the house for long periods of time. I've found sleep and hibernate to be more trouble than they're worth. But that's irrelevant - it's simply more awkward and obscure than it was before.

Seketh, on 19 June 2012 - 23:47, said:

Why are you people talking about the power options yet again? Seriously, it's one extra, insignificant step.

Because Microsoft has taken an action that was previously quick to access and easy to find and have hidden it behind the charms bar. The reality is that on the desktop there is simply no reason to use the charms bar at all, apart from to shut down your computer. It's a pointless and unnecessary change. Microsoft could have simply added shut-down options to the user tile on the Start Screen or the quick-access menu on the desktop. And it's not just that it's one extra step - it requires considerably more movement of the mouse and is considerably more fiddly, especially on multi-monitor setups. It's a bad implementation not at all suited to desktop use.

[HawkMan]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 June 2012 - 00:01, said:

The same reason most people shut down their computers - a) when required to do so after installing new drivers, b) when required to do so after installing new Windows updates, c) when required to do so after installing new software, and d) when leaving the house for long periods of time. I've found sleep and hibernate to be more trouble than they're worth. But that's irrelevant - it's simply more awkward and obscure than it was before.


Because Microsoft has taken an action that was previously quick to access and easy to find and have hidden it behind the charms bar. The reality is that on the desktop there is simply no reason to use the charms bar at all, apart from to shut down your computer. It's a pointless and unnecessary change. Microsoft could have simply added shut-down options to the user tile on the Start Screen or the quick-access menu on the desktop. And it's not just that it's one extra step - it requires considerably more movement of the mouse and is considerably more fiddly, especially on multi-monitor setups. It's a bad implementation not at all suited to desktop use.

So basically they do it a few times a month, and most of those times they don't need to use the shutdown function since the updates/installer will do it automatically for them.

leaving only the leavign for extended periods... So why, again, should the shutdown button be using prime real estate at the front of your start menu/screen ? when it is, or should be in modern computing one of the least used buttons(or even fucntions) of fucntions you actually use on your machine...

[Dot Matrix]

theyarecomingforyou, on 20 June 2012 - 00:01, said:

The same reason most people shut down their computers - a) when required to do so after installing new drivers, b) when required to do so after installing new Windows updates, c) when required to do so after installing new software, and d) when leaving the house for long periods of time. I've found sleep and hibernate to be more trouble than they're worth. But that's irrelevant - it's simply more awkward and obscure than it was before.

I honestly can't remember the last time I had to reboot because of installing drivers, updates prompt me to restart, I can't remember I had to reboot either for new software, and when leaving, my machine goes to sleep. If I leave for an extended period of time, I do power down, but an extra click doesn't bother me at all.