Thoughts: Windows 8 should have eliminated the legacy right click menu.


Recommended Posts

If it's not broken then don't fix it, people like you and Ballmer want to force change onto people just for the sake of change, there is no "forward" thinking with the direction that Ballmer is forcing windows, he only wants to line his pockets and bloat his colossal ego and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Speaking of Ballmer, have you noticed we're hearing more from Bill G. than Ballmer lately? As internal divisions clearly fail to speak and work together, and the line of 8 products don't even work all that well "together" (No syncing [except WMP classic], no Surface RT syncing at all, no connecting middleware, Xbox Music apps sucks and doesn't work consistently [Cloud, synced playlist local file support not 100% reliable], and no clear vision or attack plan, I think people realize how important Gates really was.

I doubt you used 3.1 long enough to develop some serious habits. Especially if you were only 3. I doubt your parents let you on there for hours and hours a day every day. Using Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 will make you develop A LOT of habits with the way things used to work vs now.

I used 3.1 enough to know how to poke around the OS. I was young, I was the same way with computers as kids are now with tablets. They know the ins and outs of its OS, and I knew the ins and outs of Windows OS. I was on the computer so much that my parents actually barred me from using it for more than an hour every few days.

I, too grew up with 95, 98, 2000, XP, and adapted with each release. Same with Windows 8. I've learned that the best way to adapt to new things is to not develop any habits at all. Sure, I went to Start>Shutdown just like everyone else, but just because that's moved to Settings>Power, I'm not going to throw a fit over it. Same with other people. Think they're mad they can't go to a Start Menu on their iOS or Android devices? How about going through a non descript Apple icon to shutdown OS X?

Are you arguing that mouse and keyboard, and the need for a mouse and keyboard-optimised UI, will be irrelevant in any forseeable future?

What part of the Start Screen (Strictly the Start Screen) isn't optimized for a mouse?

I think people realize how important Gates really was.

Gates has been out of the picture for a long time now.

I keep hoping he'll come back and straighten out this mess but it's probably wishful thinking.

Considering Bill Gates LIKES and USES Windows 8...

What part of the Start Screen (Strictly the Start Screen) isn't optimized for a mouse?
You're not answering my question: are you arguing that the keyboard and mouse paradigm will be irrelevant in the foreseeable future?

I'll answer yours, however:

Low information density, single activity taking the entire screen, contextual switch away from the desktop. The Start Screen is completely alien to the desktop both in its visual presentation and functional attributes.

I'm not the only one calling for Metro integration on the desktop. If you have better ideas as to what can be, I'd love to see them.

Yes I have a better idea, leave windows alone.

i'm pretty sure this has been posted in neowin forum before, but i'll post it again here:

a metro-like environtment in a window container

1419707-PPGSLZN.jpg

just replace each tiled picture above with metro apps.

you can made it full-screen just like current metro, or

you can made it windowed, so you might start another metro container that you finally able to run multiple (maximized) metro apps, and view them simultanously at once.

theres video too:

as you can see, it works like metro: tiled, 'full-screen', horisontaly scrolled

if the window container were set to maximized (or full screen), you'll have your old metro too.

Metro(s) on Desktop

Somebody should've made this "Metro(s) Container" for NT 6.1

i'm pretty sure this has been posted in neowin forum before, but i'll post it again here:

a metro-like environtment in a window container

1419707-PPGSLZN.jpg

just replace each tiled picture above with metro apps.

you can made it full-screen just like current metro, or

you can made it windowed, so you might start another metro container that you finally able to run multiple (maximized) metro apps, and view them simultanously at once.

theres video too:

as you can see, it works like metro: tiled, 'full-screen', horisontaly scrolled

if the window container were set to maximized (or full screen), you'll have your old metro too.

Metro(s) on Desktop

Somebody should've made this "Metro(s) Container" for NT 6.1

That breaks the whole idea behind Metro and Surface concepts. The desktop UI just isn't suited for use on other devices. Try as you might, the desktop as we know it today, just doesn't have any longevity left in it.

avatar.jpg

Remember this scene from "Avatar"? The character "grabs" his 'desktop' computer screen and "throws" it onto his tablet? That's where we're headed. Metro enables interoperability, it allows tablets to play with their PC brothers. Not replace them. While this concept might seem whimsical, it's not uncommon for concepts like this to drive real development. I'd love a future like this. Ya'll can cling to the desktop all you want, but this would be geek heaven for me. We're never going to get here by getting lazy, and declaring "Well, good enough. Who wants to grab a beer?"

Considering Bill Gates LIKES and USES Windows 8...

Of course, as long as that idiot Ballmer is running the show Gates has to at least act like he supports him.

Sort of how I have to act when I go to work and show people how to use that absurd 'metro' garbage just to get them to buy a new pc with windows 8 on it.

If that's the case we should have just stopped developing technology back in the 80's. Because I guess you could say the CLI is "good enough", right? It's not broken, so why change?

That breaks the whole idea behind Metro and Surface concepts. The desktop UI just isn't suited for use on other devices. Try as you might, the desktop as we know it today, just doesn't have any longevity left in it.

avatar.jpg

Remember this scene from "Avatar"? The character "grabs" his 'desktop' computer screen and "throws" it onto his tablet?

That's where we're headed. Metro enables interoperability, it allows tablets to play with their PC brothers.

Not replace them. While this concept might seem whimsical, it's not uncommon for concepts like this to drive real development. I'd love a future like this. Ya'll can cling to the desktop all you want, but this would be geek heaven for me. We're never going to get here by getting lazy, and declaring "Well, good enough. Who wants to grab a beer?"

if you're asking about drag & drop, i can not see why metro any superior than windowed desktop.

drag & drop between different windows in desktop are common practice,

but does it comfortable with current tiled or full-screened metro apps? No.

however if you can contain metro apps into windowed container, just like i proposed above,

it should ease using grab & throw from one metro apps to another metro apps in different window container.

Metro enables interoperability

not really, windowed desktop who does it.

That breaks the whole idea behind Metro and Surface concepts. The desktop UI just isn't suited for use on other devices. Try as you might, the desktop as we know it today, just doesn't have any longevity left in it.

[-img]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2012/03/avatar.jpg[-/img]

Remember this scene from "Avatar"? The character "grabs" his 'desktop' computer screen and "throws" it onto his tablet? That's where we're headed. Metro enables interoperability, it allows tablets to play with their PC brothers. Not replace them. While this concept might seem whimsical, it's not uncommon for concepts like this to drive real development. I'd love a future like this. Ya'll can cling to the desktop all you want, but this would be geek heaven for me. We're never going to get here by getting lazy, and declaring "Well, good enough. Who wants to grab a beer?"

Even your utopian future requires a windowing desktop manager rofl.

2rhuvmg.jpg

If that's the case we should have just stopped developing technology back in the 80's. Because I guess you could say the CLI is "good enough", right? It's not broken, so why change?

I am sure you have read this blog post several times, but can never get enough of it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/18/creating-the-windows-8-user-experience.aspx. People have opposed, often vehemently, significant changes along every turn, particularly power users. Judging by history, they must heading in the right direction. Really, it was Windows 7 with its near-universal acclaim where they were stagnating.

That breaks the whole idea behind Metro and Surface concepts. The desktop UI just isn't suited for use on other devices. Try as you might, the desktop as we know it today, just doesn't have any longevity left in it.

Remember this scene from "Avatar"? The character "grabs" his 'desktop' computer screen and "throws" it onto his tablet? That's where we're headed. Metro enables interoperability, it allows tablets to play with their PC brothers. Not replace them. While this concept might seem whimsical, it's not uncommon for concepts like this to drive real development. I'd love a future like this. Ya'll can cling to the desktop all you want, but this would be geek heaven for me. We're never going to get here by getting lazy, and declaring "Well, good enough. Who wants to grab a beer?"

And why can't you take a traditional desktop "window" and do the same thing with it? What makes this a metro only thing? I can drag a window to a second monitor, so I do not see an issue with the traditional desktop UI here.....

Somebody should've made this "Metro(s) Container" for NT 6.1

Has been done by Retro UI (http://www.retroui.com/) with their "Enforce"-feature

avatar.jpg

Dot please: stop thinking that Hollywood has anything realistic to show you! It's a movie, nothing more! (About to burst your buble. neither Star Trek, nor Avatar, nor other "science fiction" movies are depictions of our future.)

  • Like 1

If that's the case we should have just stopped developing technology back in the 80's. Because I guess you could say the CLI is "good enough", right? It's not broken, so why change?

I'm all for adopting new technology and I will upgrade my stuff even if it takes a lot of effort so long as there are benefits at the end of it.

What I am failing to see at present is what the benefits of metro are for productivity. It is a lot slower to switch between apps and, in windows rt, the desktop mode is half-assed.

I still find it a lot faster to switch between apps and type using a mouse, keyboard and desktop OS.

At work I would only get half the work done if I had to use metro. Until metro is as efficient as the desktop for getting real work done, desktops won't be going anywhere.

The surface pro is an exception as it runs the full desktop version of Windows 8 and isn't limited in what apps it can run.

I still think I could be more productive on the larger screen at work though.

I have to ask; when so many people are office based, why do you think desktops should be replaced anyway?

I'm all for adopting new technology and I will upgrade my stuff even if it takes a lot of effort so long as there are benefits at the end of it.

What I am failing to see at present is what the benefits of metro are for productivity. It is a lot slower to switch between apps and, in windows rt, the desktop mode is half-assed.

I still find it a lot faster to switch between apps and type using a mouse, keyboard and desktop OS.

At work I would only get half the work done if I had to use metro. Until metro is as efficient as the desktop for getting real work done, desktops won't be going anywhere.

The surface pro is an exception as it runs the full desktop version of Windows 8 and isn't limited in what apps it can run.

I still think I could be more productive on the larger screen at work though.

I have to ask; when so many people are office based, why do you think desktops should be replaced anyway?

Again, I'm confused why you think Metro means the end of the desktop. I said no such thing.

Ford Model T wasn't broken either, but, well, you know. This is nothing but Microsoft adapting to trends, and allowing Windows room to grow in the next few decades.

Bad analogy, cars are still fundamentally the same, they all for the most part have four wheels, windows, a chassis, dashboard with steering wheel control interface. If we went by your analogy modern cars would be controlled by your nipples or something.

Again, I'm confused why you think Metro means the end of the desktop. I said no such thing.

Um a few posts ago you said that you'd want to see the desktop gone with Metro in its place.

At this point, I'm favoring Microsoft eliminating the desktop all together these next few years. I think you'll see Metro evolve to take over for it.

And, if Microsoft isn't interested in killing the desktop completely, just transforming it, I would still love to see more Metro integration

Bad analogy, cars are still fundamentally the same, they all for the most part have four wheels, windows, a chassis, dashboard with steering wheel control interface. If we went by your analogy modern cars would be controlled by your nipples or something.

Um a few posts ago you said that you'd want to see the desktop gone with Metro in its place.

I especially liked the nipple part.

Again, I'm confused why you think Metro means the end of the desktop. I said no such thing.

Pretty sure I have read posts from you that state the desktop is now considered legacy and should be replaced by metro in it's entirety. If not you than many other have. That kind of move alienates desktop users completely. I know as a desktop user if I had 8 I would have startisback installed and not ever launch the metro ui/metro apps.

Which based on posts isn't what MS wants and is what MS will try to get rid of in upcoming updates.

Bad analogy, cars are still fundamentally the same, they all for the most part have four wheels, windows, a chassis, dashboard with steering wheel control interface. If we went by your analogy modern cars would be controlled by your nipples or something.

Computers are still fundamentally the same. They still have processors, memory, storage, with GUI 'steering wheel' control interface. Compared to the Model T, cars have, but haven't changed. They way we interact with them has. Same with technology. The way we're interacting with them is changing. My analogy is dead on.

Pretty sure I have read posts from you that state the desktop is now considered legacy and should be replaced by metro in it's entirety. If not you than many other have. That kind of move alienates desktop users completely. I know as a desktop user if I had 8 I would have startisback installed and not ever launch the metro ui/metro apps.

Which based on posts isn't what MS wants and is what MS will try to get rid of in upcoming updates.

My mistake, I thought he meant the desktop PC as a whole.

Computers are still fundamentally the same. They still have processors, memory, storage, with GUI 'steering wheel' control interface. Compared to the Model T, cars have, but haven't changed. They way we interact with them has. Same with technology. The way we're interacting with them is changing. My analogy is dead on.

Your analogy is wrong, the steering wheel (input) has been the same since the first cars, sure the dashboard has changed and the way you interface with the gears but the primary input is still the same.

  • Like 2
What part of the Start Screen (Strictly the Start Screen) isn't optimized for a mouse?

The mouse wheel scroll, which goes up and down, moves the start screen from side to side.

Computers are still fundamentally the same. They still have processors, memory, storage, with GUI 'steering wheel' control interface. Compared to the Model T, cars have, but haven't changed. They way we interact with them has. Same with technology. The way we're interacting with them is changing. My analogy is dead on.

Your analogy is heavily flawed, they didn't decide to move the steering wheel behind the dashboard in any car or turn the whole dashboard into a steering wheel.

The steering wheel is in the same location, gas pedal, brake pedal, clutch etc.

Just think if Ballmer invented the model T, we would be in serious trouble...

The mouse wheel scroll, which goes up and down, moves the start screen from side to side.

So then the mouse is working perfectly then?

Your analogy is wrong, the steering wheel (input) has been the same since the first cars, sure the dashboard has changed and the way you interface with the gears but the primary input is still the same.

Ok, forget the car. Your not seeing my analogy. Technology is evolving, and it's changing the way we're interacting with it. This evolution is driving new UIs and UXs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!