101 replies to this topic

[.Neo]

Wyn6, on 02 August 2012 - 17:24, said:

Adobe needs to.

Until Microsoft gets rid of the desktop Adobe doesn't need to do anything.

[BajiRav]

.Neo, on 02 August 2012 - 16:29, said:

I can't stand full-screen apps on my 27-inch screen for the exact reason the vast majority of apps don't utilize a 2560 x 1440 workspace fully. Which isn't exactly surprising considering most of the time there simply isn't enough content to fill it with. There's just no reason why I would need a full-screen mail client, contacts, calendar, browser etc. Hell, it rarely happens I have to "maximize" a word processor. Again, there's simply not enough content to warrant the need. Beyond that, the apps seem really basic functionality-wise. More on the level of Windows Phone rather than Windows. Looking at any of the Metro apps you see a lot of non-functional empty space.

You should avoid buying anything retina-class from Apple then

[Calum]

.Neo, on 02 August 2012 - 16:29, said:

I can't stand full-screen apps on my 27-inch screen for the exact reason the vast majority of apps don't utilize a 2560 x 1440 workspace fully. Which isn't exactly surprising considering most of the time there simply isn't enough content to fill it with. There's just no reason why I would need a full-screen mail client, contacts, calendar, browser etc. Hell, it rarely happens I have to "maximize" a word processor. Again, there's simply not enough content to warrant the need. Beyond that, the apps seem really basic functionality-wise. More on the level of Windows Phone rather than Windows. Looking at any of the Metro apps you see a lot of non-functional empty space.

That all makes sense to me. I certainly see your issues. Perhaps I will also end up feeling the same when I've used the Windows 8 Metro experience much more. Right now, I find myself in Desktop most of the time, and I rarely touch the Metro apps. That could be because I'd like Facebook and Spotify apps, and without them, staying on the desktop subconsciously seems best, I don't know, but that isn't a good sign

[Dashel]

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility. MS has to. Since they can't just pull the 'legacy' Desktop until Metro grows, there is little incentive for superior app developers to go simple.

The shallowness and store oriented nature of the Music app compared to Zune is worlds apart. Until there is a single demonstration of the new found power of WinRT that is as complex and dense as its desktop counterpart, I'll remain cautiously optimistic but unconvinced. Simply because none of the people over the moon for Metro care either. MS guys like Brandon give the most sugary sweet sales 'examples' of how these new 'alpha' apps are all he needs.

So far, we're just supposed to enjoy this return to simplicity, which is fine those who have never tasted something better.

[BajiRav]

Calum, on 02 August 2012 - 18:38, said:

That all makes sense to me. I certainly see your issues. Perhaps I will also end up feeling the same when I've used the Windows 8 Metro experience much more. Right now, I find myself in the desktop most of the time, and I rarely touch the Metro apps. That could be because I'd like Facebook and Spotify apps, and without them, staying on the desktop subconsciously seems best, I don't know, but that isn't a good sign

Honestly I don't think even Microsoft expects you to use metro apps on a desktop PC. On the other hand, once .neo's display driver is updated for Windows 8 - he should be able to scale metro apps nicely.

Dashel, on 02 August 2012 - 18:39, said:

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility. MS does. Since they can't just pull the 'legacy' Desktop until Metro grows, there is little incentive for superior app developers to go simple. Which is really still the point.

The shallowness and store oriented nature of the Music app compared to Zune is worlds apart. Until there is a single demonstration of the new found power of WinRT that is as complex and dense as its desktop counterpart, I'll remain cautiously optimistic but unconvinced. Simply because none of the people over the moon for Metro care either.

So far, we're just supposed to enjoy this return to simplicity, which is fine those who have never tasted something better.

I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

[CSharp.]

BajiRav, on 02 August 2012 - 18:35, said:

You should avoid buying anything retina-class from Apple then

You're always free to run a 2880x1800 resolution on 15 inches without scaling up the UI, if you really want to...

[Dashel]

BajiRav, on 02 August 2012 - 18:41, said:

I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

I agree, OneNote is the best example I've seen so far too. When you compare MetroIE to IE proper for example, that's a huge jump. If MS isn't committed to it gaining parity (and has said many omissions are on purpose), why should we expect different from anyone else?

[Wyn6]

BajiRav, on 02 August 2012 - 18:41, said:

Honestly I don't think even Microsoft expects you to use metro apps on a desktop PC. On the other hand, once .neo's display driver is updated for Windows 8 - he should be able to scale metro apps nicely.


I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

There's some pretty good Metro apps in the Store now depending on your needs/usage. Tweetro and MetroTwit are stellar Twitter clients. Discourse, an News 360 are great news aggregator apps. Buzztap is an interesting app for sports aficionados. The Newegg and Digital Folio apps are very nice as well. Cookbook and All Recipes. These are just a few I have installed at the moment. There are many more.

This isn't to say these apps have a deep level of complexity, but they're nicely done and well thought out. I can only imagine that the level of complexity and wider use cases will grow and get better over time.

Devs will start doing things along the lines of the OneNote MX apps with other apps at some point. Maybe even at release.

[.Neo]

BajiRav, on 02 August 2012 - 18:35, said:

You should avoid buying anything retina-class from Apple then

Retina has nothing to do with the actual available workspace. From the top of my head the 15-inch MacBook Pro has a higher resolution than my 27-inch iMac. The default workspace of the former on the other hand is much smaller.

[.Neo]

Dashel, on 02 August 2012 - 18:39, said:

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility.

What you're saying here is just wrong on so many levels. When Apple shifted from Mac OS 9 to OS X they offered a compatibility layer to run "Classic" apps. They continued to support this from 2001 till 2007. Big difference with Microsoft's tactic was they literally declared Mac OS 9 (and below) dead and made all their software natively available on OS X from the get go. However, compatibility with older software remained.
About five years later when Apple switched from PPC to Intel the company went through great lengths to maintain support for both PPC and Intel Macs through Universal Binaries. Software that could natively run on both platforms without needing independent versions. They did the same with 32/64-bit. The company even wrote a piece of software that allowed PPC-only software to seamlessly run on Intel. No two different environments, no switching between operating systems, nothing. For the end-user it wasn't any different from running native Intel/Universal software. With Microsoft it's all about segregation, different editions, different versions and lacking compatibility in either the one or other. The whole Metro/desktop thing in Windows 8 is no exception to the rule.

If you look at OS X' history you'll also notice Apple forced very little sudden changes onto its user base. Things changed very gradually. Even new Aqua versions were introduced first through iTunes allowing people to become familiar with it before being applied system-wide. The hints of iOS people already knew from Apple's handheld devices.

[Dashel]

Apple offers new virtualization(Rosetta)/emulation(Classic) technology every few years, so clearly they are committed to long term compatibility.

[SledgeNZ]

Wyn6, on 02 August 2012 - 18:52, said:

There's some pretty good Metro apps in the Store now depending on your needs/usage. Tweetro and MetroTwit are stellar Twitter clients. Discourse, an News 360 are great news aggregator apps. Buzztap is an interesting app for sports aficionados. The Newegg and Digital Folio apps are very nice as well. Cookbook and All Recipes. These are just a few I have installed at the moment. There are many more.

This isn't to say these apps have a deep level of complexity, but they're nicely done and well thought out. I can only imagine that the level of complexity and wider use cases will grow and get better over time.

Devs will start doing things along the lines of the OneNote MX apps with other apps at some point. Maybe even at release.

In addition to this developers still have another 3 months to polish and refine their apps. With the RTM of Win8 and VS12 we know what we need to work around as opposed to waiting for fixes that may or may not come. What you are seeing are the more basic apps that are easy to push out within the short timeframe given between releases of Win8. Better apps are definitely coming.

[GP007]

Dashel, on 02 August 2012 - 18:49, said:

I agree, OneNote is the best example I've seen so far too. When you compare MetroIE to IE proper for example, that's a huge jump. If MS isn't committed to it gaining parity (and has said many omissions are on purpose), why should we expect different from anyone else?

So they can stand out and be better? Really, why do you pick one app over the other at the end of the day? I'd like to think it's because they either do it better than the other app or they do more than the other app. If these free built-in apps stay this way until SP1 or Win9 or w/e doesn't that just leave it open for 3rd party developers to fill in the gaps like they always have?

I also think there is incentive to have a metro version of a desktop app, even a complex one like the stuff adobe makes. Say something like Photoshop online or w/e. I haven't personally tried it but how hard would it be to just make that into a metro app? At the end of the day it's not the full photoshop client from what I remember hearing so having a "simpler" or "lite" version of beefy desktop apps can only be a good thing. Say a user gets good at the lite version of the app, if they want to really dive into it then offer up the advanced/pro desktop version and you've basically got them hooked.

[BajiRav]

.Neo, on 02 August 2012 - 18:53, said:

Retina has nothing to do with the actual available workspace. From the top of my head the 15-inch MacBook Pro has a higher resolution than my 27-inch iMac. The default workspace of the former on the other hand is much smaller.

Right, that's what I was getting at. The increased resolution offers nothing that improves productivity IMO and in a way they are wasting those pixels if you can't see "more".

[+Brandon Live]

Dashel, on 02 August 2012 - 16:53, said:

Except by the time Win95 hit, most apps weren't in DOS because they allowed prior versions of Windows to coexist while it developed new Win16/32 apps. The point is, Win95 users didn't spend 95% of their time in DOS or Win3.1 mode nor did MS force us to launch Win3.1 to access DOS.

I didn't say Win95 users spent 95% of their time in DOS. But at launch, many did spend an awful lot of time in DOS apps running inside of Windows (i.e. popular games like Doom and Tie Fighter, apps like WordPerfect, virtually every LOB app, appointment scheduling system, etc). Over time that changed and many users eventually stopped using DOS/console apps altogether. Not everyone did though, and even 15-20 years later, some people still use console apps.

Quote

I know you are too young to have used it at release

Hilarious, but not correct.

Quote

but Windows has always had a CLI, that didn't start with Win95.

I was specifically referring to the fact that in Windows 95 you didn't switch between two different OS's or shells, and you couldn't choose to boot to console mode (at least not easily, and how valuable was it, ultimately, to even support that advanced option?). For all intents and purposes, Win95 users were always greeted with the Win95 shell (taskbar + start menu). And even though the start menu was a GUI element, it was the central place for launching both GUI and non-GUI apps. The Win95-era GUI was responsible for allowing Windows (and indeed PCs as a whole) to reach new customers and handle new scenarios. Some console scenarios migrated well to this new world very quickly, but others took time, and still others are still with us today. Those tools are still just as important as ever to those who use them (ask anyone who uses powershell, or devs like me who live in CMD every day). But they're clearly more of a niche than they used to be, not because anything changed for those people, but because the platform and ecosystem expanded. There was a lot of resistance from a subset of these folks to move to Windows 95 where they were "forced" to interact with a GUI to launch their console tools. It was a case where something changed for them and the benefit wasn't immediately apparent, so they objected. But how much of that was still around a year later? Two years? Who would argue today that Windows 95 should've gone out of its way to enable a console-only mode?

This makes for a pretty good parallel with Windows 8, where the shell you boot into is clearly aligned with the modern platform and app UX model, but brings forward all the same ability to launch, use, and manage your traditional GUI/desktop apps (and your console ones!). Yeah it's a change, and maybe it's hard for some to see the value prop in the short term. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Quote

The parts aren't a unified whole like they were in Win95.

You think console apps and Win32 GUI apps felt the same on Win95? Do you remember that console apps always launched full-screen? And on higher-end systems (i.e. higher than VGA resolution) would force a long and flickery screen resolution change? (and many were generally not usable when forced into windowed mode - good windowed mode support for console apps didn't come until Win2000/XP).

I'd argue the other way. I think desktop apps feel far more natural on Windows 8 than DOS/console apps did on Windows 95.