I am sick of the Windows 95 comparisons, Win 8 is far away from the glory o

[threetonesun]

What really determines the success of Windows 8, from a business standpoint, is the adoption of the Windows Store. That?s clearly what Microsoft is betting on. They?ve made huge strides in usability on tablets and they have had a usable phone OS for more than a year and are moving to unify that all around a common framework for apps. But all of that will be absolutely meaningless if the Windows Store fails.

Developers, developers, developers.

For what it's worth, this is true of all the major OSs right now, the Ubuntu ... whatever it's called, Google Play, the Apple App store, etc.

[PGHammer]

Boy, if you think Windows 8 is polarizing, you should see the Gnome community and their overall distaste for Gnome 3.

KDE 4 hasn't exactly been rainbows and kittens, either - though it hasn't been the bashfest that GNOME3 and Gnome Shell (let alone Unity) have been.

NOTHING is more commonplace in the various tech communities than anti-change rants; heck I remember when Solaris (then owned by Sun Microsystems) started deprecating CDE - which was absolutely AWFUL compared to XFree and GNOME 2. One would think that the assassination of John Paul II had been successful - the hue and cry in the Solaris community was THAT LARGE. And CDE itself had been whacked left and right.

In order for RT to kill off Win32, it must be better than Win32 - so far, I see absolutely diddly in terms of evidence that it can be better than Win32.

Win32 killed Win16 because it was, by any stretch, MUCH BETTER than Win16 - even utility applications the two APIs had in common (such as WinZip) proved that on a daily basis.

Until then, RT augments - but does not replace - Win32 (in terms of Windows 8). The desktop, let alone the Win32 API, has gone exactly nowhere.

[Davo]

I can't help but shake my head everytime I read one of those posts. I work in a cell phone shop and I swear that some people were threatening suicide if their phones updated from Gingerbread to ICS.

"You mean the menus are different? Why?" :|

[NightScreams]

And you have not answered me as to why the desktop version needs to have a UI shift just because of tablets. The modern UI is needed for a tablet and a phone, but not for my desktop computer that has no touch peripherals.

"Because they need to be the same" is not a valid reason as to why the desktop OS needs to have its UI changed. All we are asking for is a damn option to never see the modern stuff if we choose. "Why not stick with Windows 7?", because Windows 8 has a lot of nice features added to it.

but you do have options, Start8, Classicstart...etc.

Though "need" is a subjective word here, they don't "need" to change body styles on cars every 5 years either...but there you have it. MS obviously has a new direction in mind and it would be more difficult to get old users to break a habit if they included the option built in. That's what 3rd party can cater to...those who can't deal with changing what has become a habit to them. Kids that grow up with this new UI will not have this problem, just like I had no problem typing in commands and swapping floppies around when I was 6.

[xWhiplash]

The UI shift brings the desktop more in-line with what people will be seeing across their tablets, which in case you don't know, are becoming more widely used, and are the wave of the future. People will want a transparent environment to move from device to device... so, did they HAVE to switch the UI, no... is it in the best interest of everyone...yes.

Also, it took me all of 4 minutes to learn the new UI. I know, I know, for a lot of folks that is like a lifetime. They'd rather stare at the screen and whine that they can't figure it out... then go blog about it.

You know, I am a nice guy but I really do not like it when people talk to me like an idiot. Yes I know what a damn tablet is and how popular they are. I have a couple. But they are tablets. I do not use my tablet the same way I use my desktop. I use my phone differently than both of them. I am just saying for the thousandth time, on the DESKTOP (read that again DESKTOP) OS, have a damn option at install time if we want to stay in one UI. This back and forth is annoying. And no I CAN NOT pin every single program I use to the task bar without sacrificing vertical screen estate. Explain to me why the desktop mode is still there? If they add the desktop mode, why can't they give users a choice to not see any modern UI at all? Why couldn't Microsoft have included the Start Menu (as a bundled Start 8 for example) and leave it up for the users to decide? As I said before, everybody wins in this case. Except for the modern UI lovers I guess and I do not know why.

[Shane Nokes]

You know, I am a nice guy but I really do not like it when people talk to me like an idiot. Yes I know what a damn tablet is and how popular they are. I have a couple. But they are tablets. I do not use my tablet the same way I use my desktop. I use my phone differently than both of them. I am just saying for the thousandth time, on the DESKTOP (read that again DESKTOP) OS, have a damn option at install time if we want to stay in one UI. This back and forth is annoying. And no I CAN NOT pin every single program I use to the task bar without sacrificing vertical screen estate. Explain to me why the desktop mode is still there? If they add the desktop mode, why can't they give users a choice to not see any modern UI at all? Why couldn't Microsoft have included the Start Menu (as a bundled Start 8 for example) and leave it up for the users to decide? As I said before, everybody wins in this case. Except for the modern UI lovers I guess and I do not know why.

They did include the start menu, they just changed the name and made it full screen. They made it more powerful & more useful.

There's nothing in the old start menu that isn't in the new start screen.

Try to find something and I'll show you how to do it.

[Dot Matrix]

And you have not answered me as to why the desktop version needs to have a UI shift just because of tablets. The modern UI is needed for a tablet and a phone, but not for my desktop computer that has no touch peripherals.

"Because they need to be the same" is not a valid reason as to why the desktop OS needs to have its UI changed. All we are asking for is a damn option to never see the modern stuff if we choose. "Why not stick with Windows 7?", because Windows 8 has a lot of nice features added to it.

Unification of platforms. Apps. Something you're not going to get with Windows 7. I can write a WinRT app, and have it run on Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone. That's a big deal. That's something no one else can do, not even Apple, at the moment.

[Growled Member]

Unification of platforms. Apps. Something you're not going to get with Windows 7. I can write a WinRT app, and have it run on Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone. That's a big deal. That's something no one else can do, not even Apple, at the moment.

That's entirely true and I think it's going to be a big deal sooner rather than later.

[NightScreams]

. I am just saying for the thousandth time, on the DESKTOP (read that again DESKTOP) OS, have a damn option at install time if we want to stay in one UI. This back and forth is annoying. And no I CAN NOT pin every single program I use to the task bar without sacrificing vertical screen estate. Explain to me why the desktop mode is still there? If they add the desktop mode, why can't they give users a choice to not see any modern UI at all? Why couldn't Microsoft have included the Start Menu (as a bundled Start 8 for example) and leave it up for the users to decide? As I said before, everybody wins in this case. Except for the modern UI lovers I guess and I do not know why.

and for the thousandth time, you won't break habits if the old habits are there for you to pick right up. The Metro design was to exploit our natural reaction to visual signals, such as signs and colors, which our brain processes association far faster than numerous lines of text. such as street signs or speed limits, or poster and billboards.

[Wyn6]

I will never use Windows 8. I see no reason to.

Uh oh. You're in trouble. Win 7 for life then?

[Dot Matrix]

Here's some food for thought...

The departure of Scott Forstall as the man in charge of Apple's iOS efforts seems to have many reasons behind it. Much of the coverage is focusing, rightly, on the likely negative factors, in particular Siri's tepid performance and the Maps debacle. Also, Forstall's mania for skeuomorphism.

But there's more to it than that.

Forstall may have been, in John Gruber's words, an "obstacle to collaboration within the company". Indeed, the Apple statement about the changes is clear that they "will encourage even more collaboration between the company's world-class hardware, software and services teams".

What might those changes look like? I suspect they will involve the fusion of Apple's desktop and mobile operating systems. Yes, iOS is already based on OS X, but I'm talking about the two officially becoming one operating system, with one UI, at some point in the medium-term future.

Uh oh, Apple users.... Looks like your time might be coming too.

http://www.zdnet.com/why-apples-reorganisation-spells-the-unification-of-ios-and-os-x-7000006595/

And I agree, with Forstall out, you're going to see Apple take off after Microsoft and Windows 8. Something tells me after the successful launch of Windows 8, they're not going to just rest easy.

[Calum Veteran]

No, it isn't. Not even ms thinks so. That's why they are pushing to drive more businesses to win 7 in 2013... not win 8....

Do you have a source to back that up?

Im just confused why Microsoft wants the same layout on all the different types of devices.

( I mean I get that they want the UI to be similar )

but I mean people own devices to do certain things.

My phone is for making calls

tablet pc for looking at lecture notes /reading ebooks

and desktop for everything else.

I can understand the need for apps on the phone and tablet, but why the hell do I have Skype taking up my full screen desktop and making it hard for me to browse the net and multi task in general.

You don't have to set Skype up to take up your entire screen; you can make use of Windows 8's great multitasking abilities and snap Skype to either the left or right side, placing the other app you wish to use next to it. Surely that should be sufficient multitasking? Why would you want more than two apps on screen at any one time? As humans, we are only able to focus on one app at once because our eyes cannot look at multiple places all at the same time.

[HoochieMamma]

Surely that should be sufficient multitasking? Why would you want more than two apps on screen at any one time? As humans, we are only able to focus on one app at once because our eyes cannot look at multiple places all at the same time.

No, not at all.

Also, humans have this awesome thing called Peripheral vision you might want to read up on it. Because I and everyone else who knows how to use a desktop uses it every single day. So none of this "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap.

edited to be "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap

[threetonesun]

No, not at all.

Also, humans have this awesome thing called Peripheral vision you might want to read up on it. Because I and everyone else who knows how to use a desktop uses it every single day. So none of this "oh you can't focus on 1 thing at a time" crap.

You can focus on multiple things, you're probably not good at multiple things. That's been proven by plenty of UI experts.

[Dot Matrix]

No, not at all.

Also, humans have this awesome thing called Peripheral vision you might want to read up on it. Because I and everyone else who knows how to use a desktop uses it every single day. So none of this "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap.

edited to be "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap

I have peripheral vision, but I never use it to keep an eye on things. I can only focus on one thing at a time. Refer to texting and driving studies for more.

[HoochieMamma]

I have peripheral vision, but I never use it to keep an eye on things. I can only focus on one thing at a time. Refer to texting and driving studies for more.

I don't know how you compare taking your eyes off the road and moving them down half a meter to your lap to text is anything like focusing on a desktop screen.

Fail analogy is fail

[Dot Matrix]

I don't know how you compare taking your eyes off the road and moving them down half a meter to your lap to text is anything like focusing on a desktop screen.

Fail analogy is fail

It's exactly the same thing. People claim they can concentrate on both, but accidents and deaths prove otherwise. Same thing applies to the desktop. You can claim that you can see/concentrate on everything, but you're really not.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Unification of platforms. Apps. Something you're not going to get with Windows 7. I can write a WinRT app, and have it run on Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone. That's a big deal. That's something no one else can do, not even Apple, at the moment.

You say that as if it's a good thing for consumers. An app designed for the desktop may technically run on a phone but it has to be completely redesigned, so it's effectively a separate app. And while a tablet app will run on the desktop it certainly isn't suited to that - sure you can use apps like Mail and Music on a desktop PC but you wouldn't choose to, not when you have applications like Thunderbird and iTunes. WinRT apps may run across more platforms but that doesn't make them better for it - in fact the opposite seems to be true.

A good analogy would be if retailers suddenly decided to only sell clothes in 'Medium' - that might be great for people who are a size 'Medium' but it means large people will have incredibly tight-fitting clothes and small people will have incredibly baggy clothes. It would be much better to simply make clothes in different sizes for different purposes.

[Dot Matrix]

You say that as if it's a good thing for consumers. An app designed for the desktop may technically run on a phone but it has to be completely redesigned, so it's effectively a separate app. And while a tablet app will run on the desktop it certainly isn't suited to that - sure you can use apps like Mail and Music on a desktop PC but you wouldn't choose to, not when you have applications like Thunderbird and iTunes. WinRT apps may run across more platforms but that doesn't make them better for it - in fact the opposite seems to be true.

A good analogy would be if retailers suddenly decided to only sell clothes in 'Medium' - that might be great for people who are a size 'Medium' but it means large people will have incredibly tight-fitting clothes and small people will have incredibly baggy clothes. It would be much better to simply make clothes in different sizes for different purposes.

Huh? So if I understand you correctly, apps shouldn't be allowed to be cross device? Because that's exactly what we do now with desktops and laptops. Of course they have to be redesigned, but underneath, it's the same code. And what the heck is a "tablet app"? If you're referring to Metro apps, they are not "tablet apps". That **** has been debunked to death. I've been running Metro apps on my desktop without issue, in fact some have even replaced their desktop equivalents. Skype, Calendar, OneNote, EverNote, SkyDrive, Bing, Weather, Lync, Yellow Pages, Kindle, Wikipedia, etc. I could go on, but I won't. I run those AND more on my desktop. They work, and they work well.

So, yes, this is a good thing for consumers. Because they'll be able to go from device to device using the same apps without change. Sorry this isn't some Power-User-CLI-nerd stuff. But this is 2012, not 1995 anymore. Computing has changed. This is the age of apps. The age of the desktop has come and gone.

[Zlain]

No, not at all.

Also, humans have this awesome thing called Peripheral vision you might want to read up on it. Because I and everyone else who knows how to use a desktop uses it every single day. So none of this "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap.

edited to be "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap

Sure, you can focus on several things at once, but the more things you focus on, the harder it is to remain efficient at focusing on each one.

As you are typing your reply to this, you can see the task bar, but if you are looking at the text, you can't really see what it pinned on the task bar if you truly focus on the text.

Anyhow, wtf has this got to do with Windows 8.

[Active.]

what the heck is a "tablet app"? If you're referring to Metro apps, they are not "tablet apps".

They're "OK for tablets, disappointing on desktops" (to quote Ars Technica reviewing the core apps in Windows 8). That's why you see them called "tablet apps".

[Calum Veteran]

No, not at all.

Also, humans have this awesome thing called Peripheral vision you might want to read up on it. Because I and everyone else who knows how to use a desktop uses it every single day. So none of this "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap.

edited to be "oh you can't focus on more than 1 thing at a time" crap

Using peripheral vision is not focussing; it's merely being aware of other things around the area you're focussing on. It's great for having a video playing while focussing on a web browser (for example), but it's not great for writing a Word document at the exact same time you're replying to a post on Neowin. You are still only able to focus on the one app?you still only have the one pair of hands, and the operating system still only allows you to type in one program at any one time. So, please tell me, why do you feel you need more than 2 apps on screen at any one time, considering all of that? You're not going to have more than one video playing at once, are you; you're not going to have music playing while you're watching a video, are you; you're not able, due to biology, to type in more than one app at the exact same time, are you?

[Rickkins]

Do you have a source to back that up?

Turns out, I do...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/windows_7_70_per_cent/

[ahhell]

Turns out, I do...

http://www.theregist..._7_70_per_cent/

You're using The Register as a source? LOL

Why not the Daily Mail or the National Enquirer?

:rolleyes:

[x-byte]

They're "OK for tablets, disappointing on desktops" (to quote Ars Technica reviewing the core apps in Windows 8). That's why you see them called "tablet apps".

Ars said that? How they have fallen.

You can call them what ever you'd like. They are still Metro-apps. They works perfectly fine on all platforms. Once the market starts taking advantage of them, we will see a ecosystem like no other.