164 replies to this topic 7 votes

[HoochieMamma]

.Neo, on 30 October 2012 - 12:24, said:

But, but, but, but, but you can be just as productive in Metro as on the desktop!

Hahhahahaha you should do stand up!

I love it when they come out with that one. Also the ole' "Remember 1000 keyboard shortcuts which where never needed but now needed to navigate the Desktop" would love to see that go down with grandparents with their fancy new Windows 8 machines.

[CSharp.]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 12:29, said:

I don't see Angry Birds on here at all...

Angry Birds isn't free, is it?

[S7R1K3R]

Gary7, on 29 October 2012 - 19:59, said:

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

Why would you use the word never? So you are saying 3 years from now when your pc breaks, (notice I said when and not if) what you are going to out of your way to try and find a pc with windows 95 or 98 or whatever you use because your needs don't seem to change. I bet you still have the same video and music collection you had in the 90s too!? Well because you seem no reason to right? So many internet martyrs who think they can affect the market with their dumb ideas of what they "need" and "can" not will pay for.

[xWhiplash]

CSharp., on 30 October 2012 - 12:37, said:

Angry Birds isn't free, is it?

I believe it is a few bucks. So Dot's screen shot is not valid here.

I really do not understand why Dot and other HATE HATE HATE the idea of a damn choice? MS should have made their own version of Start 8 and included it with the OS.

I have said this before, and I will say it again because I have not heard any GOOD reason why they should not give consumers the choice.

You know, it really confuses me why the people that love Windows 8 always slam the idea of a simple choice. After you install Windows 8 it should have asked you if you want the Modern UI or the complete desktop experience. You guys win, and people that are in a heavy productive environment win. This will get rid of all these complaints (other than those complaining about the Windows Store). Why is it bad to want consistency? If I am in the modern UI, I should stay in the modern UI. If I am on the Desktop, I should stay on the Desktop. Why don't you want a choice? We have to move on? What rule is there that we have to ditch the UI paradigm we used for 20 years? Because it is just old? How is that a bad thing? It has the best productive paradigm. If you are in a productive environment, having several windows open and visible at the same time and it is MORE PRODUCTIVE for YOU, why do they NEED to move to a modern style UI paradigm? Just because it is new?

The only response I ever get from this is simply "because times have changed". Yes times have changed, we now have a giant tablet market. But "the times" in desktop computing have not changed. Touch monitor support? Keep in mind I said productive environment. There is not ONE person I have asked, that wants a touch monitor for their work and productive tasks. Video editing, audio creation, photo manipulation, programming, and all other productive tasks are NOT good with a touch monitor for an 8 hour a day shift.

Because the desktop OS, phone OS, and tablet OS MUST be the same. Again, why? The productive desktop environment HAS NOT CHANGED. I fail to see how forcing (again, just a simple option when you first install is all everybody I talk to wants) the modern UI on desktop users is a plus.

Be honest here, if you take all of these complaints (minus the ones about the store). A simple Modern UI or Desktop UI choice at startup ON THE DESKTOP OS would fix MOST of the complaints.

[jakem1]

Anti-Kool Aid, on 29 October 2012 - 19:56, said:

So tired of the Win8 is bigger/just like Windows 95 talk from Microsoft.

Windows 8 is the anti-95.

Win32 programs didn't gave you the feeling that something is amiss compared to Win 3.1 applications. (with Metro you have this feeling constantly). Even the first generation Win95 programs at launch felt more capable than their 3.1 precursors (Corel Draw 6, Office 95). Notro provides the complete opposite feeling.

Windows 95 came with uncrippled winfile.exe and progman.exe (the win 3.1 GUI), and you were able to boot directly into it without even seeing 95's explorer.exe at all ("shell=progman.exe" in system.ini). (works in win 98 too) There was even an official option at the Windows 95 setup for that if you upgraded from Win3.1.

You also were able to directly boot into DOS with ease (just set bootgui=0 in msdos.sys, that also worked in Win 98)

Windows 95 is the anti-thesis to Windows 8. The philosophies were completely different. The team had enough courage to provide all these options because it truly seemed as if they were proud and confident about the system to stand on its own. Windows 8 on the other hand comes across as coward's darling - "the users are too stupid to appreciate our beautiful hippster GUI, let's cripple the desktop as much as we can to force them to this". Windows 95 didn't need any crippling, users have chosen explorer.exe because it was better, and they had the ability to use the old GUI without compromise If they wished to do so.

Windows 95 is confidence. Windows 8 is cowardice.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. You claim that Windows 95 was confident but then praise it for keeping redundant UI elements like progman.exe. That doesn't sound confident, it sounds like someone was frightened that users wouldn't adapt to the new UI so they kept the old one for the people who need a security blanket. You then claim that Windows 8 is cowardly (???) but admonish Microsoft for cutting the cord and refusing to appease the people who can't deal with change.

[threetonesun]

The King of GnG, on 30 October 2012 - 11:54, said:

Yeah. You know something is wrong in the PC world when the "best apps" lists for Windows 8 include Angry Birds. According to the new Microsoft policy, this is the future. According to my guts, this is how they can go **** themselves.....

Oh no, people are using computers? THE HORROR!

Angry Birds is the Sim City / Myst / Oregon Trail / Pong of our days. Games have always sold PCs.

The reality is that for a ton of Windows users, they can boot straight to Metro and never need the desktop. For the rest of us there's a better, faster, and more secure version of Windows sitting on one tile as well.

[Dot Matrix]

xWhiplash, on 30 October 2012 - 12:44, said:

I believe it is a few bucks. So Dot's screen shot is not valid here.

I really do not understand why Dot and other HATE HATE HATE the idea of a damn choice? MS should have made their own version of Start 8 and included it with the OS.

I have said this before, and I will say it again because I have not heard any GOOD reason why they should not give consumers the choice.

You know, it really confuses me why the people that love Windows 8 always slam the idea of a simple choice. After you install Windows 8 it should have asked you if you want the Modern UI or the complete desktop experience. You guys win, and people that are in a heavy productive environment win. This will get rid of all these complaints (other than those complaining about the Windows Store). Why is it bad to want consistency? If I am in the modern UI, I should stay in the modern UI. If I am on the Desktop, I should stay on the Desktop. Why don't you want a choice? We have to move on? What rule is there that we have to ditch the UI paradigm we used for 20 years? Because it is just old? How is that a bad thing? It has the best productive paradigm. If you are in a productive environment, having several windows open and visible at the same time and it is MORE PRODUCTIVE for YOU, why do they NEED to move to a modern style UI paradigm? Just because it is new?

The only response I ever get from this is simply "because times have changed". Yes times have changed, we now have a giant tablet market. But "the times" in desktop computing have not changed. Touch monitor support? Keep in mind I said productive environment. There is not ONE person I have asked, that wants a touch monitor for their work and productive tasks. Video editing, audio creation, photo manipulation, programming, and all other productive tasks are NOT good with a touch monitor for an 8 hour a day shift.

Because the desktop OS, phone OS, and tablet OS MUST be the same. Again, why? The productive desktop environment HAS NOT CHANGED. I fail to see how forcing (again, just a simple option when you first install is all everybody I talk to wants) the modern UI on desktop users is a plus.

Be honest here, if you take all of these complaints (minus the ones about the store). A simple Modern UI or Desktop UI choice at startup ON THE DESKTOP OS would fix MOST of the complaints.

Do you even understand the purpose of Windows 8? It's a transition OS that is eliminating the old, and bringing in the new. There's no "choice" because Microsoft is eliminating the old paradigm. You're going to see it mature and more change in Windows 9. I can guarantee it. Modern is going to evolve to replace what we know as the desktop.

Yes, you have apps like Angry Birds. OMG, the horror. You also have apps like Skype, Lync, OneNote, EverNote, SkyDrive, MetroTwit, etc. I'm honestly confused as to why having such a range of apps *finally* on an OS I can use without having to go buy a separate device. You're going to see more and more big name apps make the transition over to Metro. The only ones left behind are those clinging to legacy programs no longer developed for.

[MFH]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 12:54, said:

Modern is going to evolve to replace what we know as the desktop.

As long as this brave new modern world is limited to dual-tasking instead of multi-tasking i doubt that...

[xWhiplash]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 12:54, said:

Do you even understand the purpose of Windows 8? It's a transition OS that is eliminating the old, and bringing in the new. There's no "choice" because Microsoft is eliminating the old paradigm. You're going to see it mature and more change in Windows 9. I can guarantee it. Modern is going to evolve to replace what we know as the desktop.

Did you even read what I wrote? The productive desktop environment HAS NOT CHANGED. You cannot change paradigms "just because you want to".

No it won't. I cannot see doing my job as well on Modern as I can on the desktop.

[HoochieMamma]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 12:54, said:

Do you even understand the purpose of Windows 8? It's a transition OS that is eliminating the old, and bringing in the new. There's no "choice" because Microsoft is eliminating the old paradigm. You're going to see it mature and more change in Windows 9. I can guarantee it. Modern is going to evolve to replace what we know as the desktop.

Like xWhiplash said, WHY? There is no need what so ever to force people to use the metro screen on a desktop. What should have happened is if Windows 8 detected a touch screen input then go nuts and boot to it by default (in fact remove the desktop all together if its a full touch screen device ie: full tablet not a hybrid/surface), but if its on a normal PC then give the user at least a CHOICE.

Oh and if your correct on your last statement I will shoot myself in the head. Quote me if you have to and use it against me in the future. Desktop is going NOWHERE.

[~Johnny]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 12:54, said:

Do you even understand the purpose of Windows 8? It's a transition OS that is eliminating the old, and bringing in the new. There's no "choice" because Microsoft is eliminating the old paradigm. You're going to see it mature and more change in Windows 9. I can guarantee it. Modern is going to evolve to replace what we know as the desktop.

Yes, I think you've slightly the jumped the gun. Okay, not slightly - you've attached rocket boosters to yourself and blasted off to the moon.

Microsoft, in no way, want to eliminate the desktop and desktop programs. Widows 8 is made by people who understand how useful and more productive the desktop is in many environments. They also understand how the Modern UI can offer a better experience in different environments - possibly even for the same users, but under different scenarios. You'll probably eventually see the overlap of what third party developers offer on the desktop and the Modern UI decrease heading towards Windows 9 and beyond, but they'll both still be core pillars of the Windows experience. Windows 8 is certainly a transition OS, but it's not a transition to kill off the desktop. It's a transition to introduce a new, and simpler way to consume and enjoy computing content.

Windows RT on the other hand, may well get rid of it's desktop going forward. But Windows 8 and 9 - getting rid of the desktop goes against all of what the Modern UI is for, and what Windows is about. Killing off the desktop would remove a large heart of the Window's power and flexibility, because the sandboxed and security focused land of the Modern UI doesn't allow the kind of low level flexibility and power that serious business and users that rely on their Windows machines need. And Microsoft isn't going to change the Modern UI's outlook on that - that would require a reversal of the whole point of the Modern UI and its goals. And that's the important part, its goal are not the same as that of the desktops, and it's not meant to replace it. You're not meant to migrate everything that works on the desktop over too it, because that would be silly and counter productive. Some things are more suited to the modern UI, and others are more suited to the desktop.

[Dot Matrix]

xWhiplash, on 30 October 2012 - 12:58, said:

Did you even read what I wrote? The productive desktop environment HAS NOT CHANGED. You cannot change paradigms "just because you want to".

No it won't. I cannot see doing my job as well on Modern as I can on the desktop.

HoochieMamma, on 30 October 2012 - 13:03, said:

Like xWhiplash said, WHY? There is no need what so ever to force people to use the metro screen on a desktop. What should have happened is if Windows 8 detected a touch screen input then go nuts and boot to it by default (in fact remove the desktop all together if its a full touch screen device ie: full tablet not a hybrid/surface), but if its on a normal PC then give the user at least a CHOICE.

Oh and if your correct on your last statement I will shoot myself in the head. Quote me if you have to and use it against me in the future. Desktop is going NOWHERE.

MFH, on 30 October 2012 - 12:57, said:

As long as this brave new modern world is limited to dual-tasking instead of multi-tasking i doubt that...

Like I said, Windows 8 is a transition, it's incomplete. You guys honestly expect to keep using the aging Win32 desktop forever? Sorry, that's not how computing works. Change happens. As WinRT matures, you're going to see less and less of Win32.

[Anti-Kool Aid]

jakem1, on 30 October 2012 - 12:47, said:

Your post makes absolutely no sense. You claim that Windows 95 was confident but then praise it for keeping redundant UI elements like progman.exe. That doesn't sound confident, it sounds like someone was frightened that users wouldn't adapt to the new UI so they kept the old one for the people who need a security blanket. You then claim that Windows 8 is cowardly (???) but admonish Microsoft for cutting the cord and refusing to appease the people who can't deal with change.

Fool. Have I to explain it again? They provided the old options because they were CONFIDENT that people would use the new GUI, despite still having the option for the old. It was a bold statement of the quality of the product.

Window 8 is cowardice, because they have not the same confidence that users will accept the new UI freely. They have to use cheap tricks and crippling to force the users onto the Notro knife. Window 8's product philosophy is a testament to trickery, fear and cowardice.

[Dot Matrix]

Anti-Kool Aid, on 30 October 2012 - 13:13, said:

Window 8 is cowardice, because they have not the same confidence that users will accept the new UI freely. They have to use cheap tricks and crippling to force the users onto the Notro knife. Window 8's product philosophy is a testament to trickery, fear and cowardice.

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what you think it means. It's not about accepting it freely. It's about moving away from the old, and bringing in the new. Microsoft is radically altering their image, and to do that, changes need to be made, and sacrifices will happen. That's not cowardice, that's a bold action, one companies do not make often. Cowardice would be letting others dictate your actions, and letting other companies continually run all over you. Microsoft was slipping into the realm of insignificance. Fighting to get back out is far from cowardly.

You cannot move forward, and cling to the past. That's not how things work.

[xWhiplash]

Dot Matrix, on 30 October 2012 - 13:09, said:

Like I said, Windows 8 is a transition, it's incomplete. You guys honestly expect to keep using the aging Win32 desktop forever? Sorry, that's not how computing works.

Um I am sorry....what? Not how computing works? Until businesses change what we do, that is indeed how "computing" works. If my business requires me to have 6 windows explorer windows open at the same time to shuffle files around between servers and clients, several chat windows openly visible AT ALL TIMES, and multiple Visual Studio windows open at the same time so I can edit both when I patch changes. Yes, my job will require me to use the old "Win32" paradigm as you said forever as long as that is what businesses need that type of functionality from me.

How we use the computers HAS NOT CHANGED. We use the phone for these small "Angry Birds" type of games, twitter, facebook, and other applications because maybe we play it while we are waiting in the Doctor's office or something.

In a productive environment, things will never change. That is how computing works.