116 replies to this topic 6 votes

[+remixedcat]

.Neo, on 19 September 2012 - 10:48, said:

Does Metro in Windows 8 RTM allow me to split screens 50-50 so I can see two apps at the same time?

Doesn't in Windows Server 2012 and the one I have is final retail.

[Calum]

.Neo, on 19 September 2012 - 10:48, said:

Does Metro in Windows 8 RTM allow me to split screens 50-50 so I can see two apps at the same time?

No. But that has nothing to do with whether the operating system is usable or not. I'm talking about the agreed definition of 'usable' as it relates to software development; that definition revolves around whether the software can be used by people for its intended purpose, not whether users will want to use it or not due to the features it contains. I perhaps didn't make my question in that post clear, but that is what I meant.

[+articuno1au]

Use the desktop version of the app and stop bitching like little girls.

"Metro is terrible because I can't use 2 apps at a time.. While using Metro.. Instead of the desktop that lets me do this"

No sympathy for idiots.

[.Neo]

Calum, on 19 September 2012 - 10:51, said:

No. But that has nothing to do with whether the operating system is usable or not.

My question was separate from Windows 8 being in any way usable or not.

articuno1au, on 19 September 2012 - 10:58, said:

Use the desktop version of the app and stop bitching like little girls.

"Metro is terrible because I can't use 2 apps at a time.. While using Metro.. Instead of the desktop that lets me do this"

No sympathy for idiots.

Honestly thinking I'm not aware of that option doesn't really testify of much intelligence either, nor does immediately referring to people as "idiots". I'd like to think that at some point Microsoft would want to move away from the desktop, perhaps keeping it for legacy purposes only, and invest fully in their Metro interface. Hence the reason I wonder how they're going to address this issue. If I'm unable to have a future Metrofied version of Word and Excel side-by-side it's going to have a serious impact on usability. For me at least. Performing a multi-touch gesture after each line is going be undoable when working on certain administrative tasks.

[Max Norris]

Calum, on 19 September 2012 - 10:51, said:

No. But that has nothing to do with whether the operating system is usable or not. I'm talking about the agreed definition of 'usable' as it relates to software development; that definition revolves around whether the software can be used by people for its intended purpose, not whether users will want to use it or not due to the features it contains. I perhaps didn't make my question in that post clear, but that is what I meant.

For me anyway, it's totally usable... but not always convenient or as productive as the desktop versions. Needs a bit of refinement yet. The split screen thing being a great example.. needs some more functionality added to it. Something along the lines of AwesomeWM on a *Nix box if that makes any sense.. I totally get the full screen thing, but sometimes it sure would be nice to be able to bring up a few more apps and have them all displayed at the same time.. obviously needs to take screen size into account, if you're on a little tablet this isn't going to fly, but on a system that has a ginormous resolution, why not?

[PGHammer]

remixedcat, on 19 September 2012 - 10:50, said:

Doesn't in Windows Server 2012 and the one I have is final retail.

We're all aware that ModernUI apps are designed to be run full-screen; however, what is stopping you from running Win32 applications side by side (identically to Windows 7)? Absolutely nothing.

If anything, I can run *more* Win32 applications at once on the same hardware compared to Windows 7.

That's REAL usability - at least to me.

[Calum]

.Neo, on 19 September 2012 - 10:59, said:

My question was separate from Windows 8 being in any way usable or not.

But I was questioning his claim that it isn't usable. So I'm not quite sure what you're asking me. From my experience, and the experience of many, Windows 8 is fully usable.

Max Norris, on 19 September 2012 - 11:02, said:

For me anyway, it's totally usable... but not always convenient or as productive as the desktop versions. Needs a bit of refinement yet. The split screen thing being a great example.. needs some more functionality added to it. Something along the lines of AwesomeWM on a *Nix box if that makes any sense.. I totally get the full screen thing, but sometimes it sure would be nice to be able to bring up a few more apps and have them all displayed at the same time.. obviously needs to take screen size into account, if you're on a little tablet this isn't going to fly, but on a system that has a ginormous resolution, why not?

That's what I was getting at Thanks. It's usable, regarding the features it has and what was implemented, but the features they've added may not be better than what was previously available and some may feel the features could be greatly improved.

Personally, I'm happy with how limited Windows 8 is, but I would be interested in how they could implement your suggestions in a way that keeps me happy. If they can, that would be great, because it's giving us more functionality (and it would be functionality that I wouldn't have to use if I didn't want to).

[CSharp.]

Calum, on 19 September 2012 - 11:06, said:

that definition revolves around whether the software can be used by people for its intended purpose, not whether users will want to use it or not due to the features it contains.

That's not a very high bar is it? DOS is usable.

[grayscale]

.Neo, on 19 September 2012 - 10:59, said:

I'd like to think that at some point Microsoft would want to move away from the desktop, perhaps keeping it for legacy purposes only, and invest fully in their Metro interface. Hence the reason I wonder how they're going to address this issue. If I'm unable to have a future Metrofied version of Word and Excel side-by-side it's going to have a serious impact on usability, for me. Performing a multi-touch gesture after each line is going be undoable when working on some administrative tasks I have to do from time to time.

The thing about the point you're raising is that, you're asking about the ability to adjust the snap feature on Metro now (while Desktop is still there) because you're considering what they're going to do in the future. Can't we cut them off some slack and see how they adjust or adapt based on how users use this new way of presenting apps? We don't know if this 1/3|2/3 snap feature will still be present on the next version of Windows.

[.Neo]

grayscale, on 19 September 2012 - 11:16, said:

The thing about the point you're raising is that, you're asking about the ability to adjust the snap feature on Metro now (while Desktop is still there) because you're considering what they're going to do in the future. Can't we cut them off some slack and see how they adjust or adapt based on how users use this new way of presenting apps? We don't know if this 1/3|2/3 snap feature will still be present on the next version of Windows.

On itself that's fair enough. The thing is though that these limitations in Metro could have a serious impact on the switch towards the new interface. Beyond that the solution is so simple: Allow us to drag that separation bar around on screens with a resolution larger than X. I honestly have no idea why I'm "forced" into this 80-20 concept.

[+remixedcat]

Split screen should have been in there to begin with.

[excalpius]

"Windows 8: The Boldest, Biggest Redesign in MS's History"

So was New Coke...

[Subhadip]

.Neo, on 19 September 2012 - 11:22, said:

On itself that's fair enough. The thing is though that these limitations in Metro could have a serious impact on the switch towards the new interface. Beyond that the solution is so simple: Allow us to drag that separation bar around on screens with a resolution larger than X.

If we are talking about the future, obviously those limitations will be dealt with before Desktop goes away, as grayscale points out. There have been several changes deep in the WinRT API between the Developer Preview and RTM, and there's no reason to assume that there won't be dramatic improvements to WinRT in the coming years.

Like Paul Thurrott suggests, this is a new beginning, it is more like WinRT 0.8 and Microsoft is continuing to develop WinRT at a furious pace. To be fair, it is a much more capable environment than OS X 10.0, iOS (then iPhone OS) 1.0 or Android 1.0.

In the meantime, the Desktop is not just there but greatly enhanced over Windows 7. If they had removed Desktop altogether then all of these "But Metro cannot do X" complaints would have some serious weight.

[.Neo]

Subhadip, on 19 September 2012 - 11:31, said:

Like Paul Thurrott suggests, this is a new beginning, it is more like WinRT 0.8 and Microsoft is continuing to develop WinRT at a furious pace. To be fair, it is a much more capable environment than OS X 10.0, iOS (then iPhone OS) 1.0 or Android 1.0.

How did you reach that conclusion? Functionality-wise the OS X Cheetah desktop in itself didn't have any serious limitations compared to the Mac OS 9 desktop. You're also comparing a mid 2001 operating system to a late 2012 one. I doubt that's an excuse you'd really want to use, nor is it something to be really proud of for a company the size of Microsoft.

[Calum]

CJEric, on 19 September 2012 - 11:14, said:

That's not a very high bar is it? DOS is usable.

DOS is usable. Remember, we're talking about the term 'usable' in regard to how it is used when describing software.

No one can reasonably state that Windows 7 isn't usable because it doesn't cook them breakfast in bed. That feature wasn't intended and wasn't implemented because it wasn't intended. Likewise, someone cannot state that Windows 8 isn't usable because the "Metro" experience doesn't allow for two app windows of equal size side-by-side—that feature wasn't intended by Microsoft and it wasn't implemented because it wasn't intended. Similarly, a GUI was clearly not intended for DOS. DOS was completely usable. An improved operating system was released that included a GUI, but DOS was and still is usable.