373 posts in this topic

Posted

A search order of the data by the Feds would be valid regardless of where the data is held. 

Except if they showed up with a court order at your place of business at least you could call your lawyer and see the warrant.  A FISA order comes with a gag so the provider CAN'T tell you they have surrendered your data.  Equally as troubling to me is that I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that every ToS agreement for cloud storage contains blanket provisions prohibiting lawsuits in the event of a data breach. 

 

Call me a Luddite, but I'll keep my important data locally thank you!  For me the cloud is an option for only casual data i.e. vacation photos, recipes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's still not apples to apples though, and more fallout of the larger issue of safety trumping liberty politically.  In fact, I would say that businesses should be less protected than individuals in such cases.  Again though, that is more of a political argument than a technical one, which as you say, its your choice at the end of the day.

 

For your average user, cloud storage is safer than relying on them to actually protect their data.  On the other hand, few if any business have anything to fear from the Feds sampling their data worst case, so risk there is nominal too.  A data breach can occur anywhere, that's simply legal protecting them from liability, which has always been boilerplate on the EULA. (Much like revenue lost due to downtime)

 

The kicker is, your vacation photos are more likely to get you in trouble than any other type of data with Big Brother.  What exactly is your main concern, litigation or privacy?

 

Per the topic though, they only need to do a couple simple things to fix OneDrive to more closely approximate Explorer for simple users. 1) Add more views and 2) make it easier to move files/folders.  Sadly, its another example of the website still being better than the modern app.  Until that trend changes, all this talk about competing with the Desktop is simply absurd.

 

Luckily, judging from their Mail app among others, they are making progress figuring out a good touch-centric way to 'drag and drop'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Funny dot, you didn't mention the 101+ keys on a keyboard when you were comparing 5pt touch with mice.  So, somehow a mouse (and UI) is archaic, but a keyboard isn't.  That the Surface is sold without a keyboard is proof enough of his claim.

 

A great example of this is the new Samsung commercial, where they dis the Surface for being too 'laptop' like.  The point remains that instead of flamebaiting your betters here, you should be in the slate threads making a case against dumb slates that have only the most rudimentary support for non-touch.

 

The problem with Metro and file management, is that MS has done another 180 on good computing habits (like they did with application management).  While most power users launch off the file association, they've now heavily favored the app open approach.  Once you remove that, the need for a granular file manager falls away (as the location of data is less important when its in the cloud).  OneDrive is the Metro Explorer, local data is an archaic remnant of Desktop computing. ;)

Most tablets are sold without keyboards for reasons of meeting price targets - that's regardless of OS.  (In other words, the OS on the tablet is irrelevant.)

Where - in terms of price - are tablets that include keyboards?

While most tablets have keyboards available as options - in the case of the iPad, from third parties, not Apple - few at all, and none at the low end - include them.

While x86-based tablets are largely derived from Ultrabook designs (and some of them do include keyboards), where are they in terms of price?  If you need a keyboard - included, mind you - you purchase a tablet with one, and pay for it.  (The OS is irrelevant.)

 

Further, WindowsRT DOES include Desktop Explorer - which even supports OneDrive - as does the 8.1 flavor.  (How is file navogation on Android handled?  Same question applies to iOS - how is it done there?)  Bashing ModernUI due to lack of Explorer-equivalent file management is one thing - however, the tablet competition - Android and iOS in particular - lacks even the equivalent of the OneDrive app, which IS better than any third-party Android or iOS app when it comes to file management or navigation - until they come out with OneDrive for Android and/or iOS, that is.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I disagree.   Everyone I talk to is seriously reconsidering "cloud storage" in light of everything disclosed by Snowden, etc.  At this point businesses especially are probably looking at how fast they can reverse course and get control of their data back because the reality is that the only truly secure storage IS local storage.

If security is that big an issue, that is true - and was true prior to Snowden, as any CSO (corporate security officer) with a clue could tell you.  If a CSO said otherwise, they are either clueless or cuckoo - full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is FUD.  Office365 carries full privacy protection for businesses and meets privacy standards (like HIPPA).  MS has also reversed course on the 'scanning' of unshared personal files.  A search order of the data by the Feds would be valid regardless of where the data is held.  The Snowden leak isn't really apples to apples here.

 

Smart companies are implementing a hybrid approach, not one or the other, if they are that concerned about a subset of highly sensitive data (which is more of a backup/archival concern than a privacy one).  That's really beside my point though, as the OneDrive app also looks locally too.

 

I'm not sure but the Secure services may be a different tier. Security isn't always about if MS' datacenters can be hacked, but, the security of having your data in a private companies hands as well. HIPAA isn't the only security rule and regulation organizations have to contend with.

 

Bandwidth is also a big issue, and keep in mind, for applications, you're really looking at Azure services.

 

I do agree, most wise organizations are looking at a hybrid solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For the companies who have lots of workers out in the field moving around it's better for them to have some element of their business "in the cloud".   Plus when MS has things like Exchange and so on as a service that they can offer you at a very good price then I think lots of companies will use parts, maybe not 100% cloud but a good chunk.   The key thing here is that when it's just a service running on Azure it works, you pop in what you need and MS does the heavy work with setup and maintenance.     If you also using things like SharePoint then you can setup your own "private cloud",  so in this case the data that's most important is stored on your own servers but the "apps" and other parts are still handled by MS.

 

Anyways, this is kind of off topic anyways, not that there's much to talk about with the start menu at this point.    The new rumor is that we could get it in a 2nd 8.1 update in August now but it might just be the menu and not floating metro apps on the desktop.   Till we see it in a working build and get a clear picture of how it'll be then I can't really talk about it.   What they showed at build was still just a working concept that can and probably will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For the companies who have lots of workers out in the field moving around it's better for them to have some element of their business "in the cloud".   Plus when MS has things like Exchange and so on as a service that they can offer you at a very good price then I think lots of companies will use parts, maybe not 100% cloud but a good chunk.  

 

I can't disagree until you define cloud. I'm a proponent of Private clouds, not service clouds. The biggest beneficiaries of service clouds are small business that can't invest in their own infrastructure or IT staff. It has some disaster recovery potential of course, and also makes it easier to make applications you want to share with those you don't want to give access to your on-premises resources (or private cloud).

 

As for apps, Microsoft doesn't "handle" them, they host them. If you have a robust SharePoint infrastructure that is published externally and securely, I'm not sure why you would need MS to "handle" your apps. I have nothing against it, but I still think it's a misused buzzword for which there is no real value for most. Companies just make up a bunch of stuff to get you to buy-in. There's a word for that: Marketing.

 

Again, for business with little or not IT staff or development staff, it's definitely the way to go. Large organizations with bloat, MS can put numbers in front of you that will show you huge cost savings, if you let go of staff and pay them instead. It's not just MS, that's the basis of all cloud company ROI analysis.

 

It's just not a simple, the cloud is great and is going to take over. We haven't even begun to discuss the value of Cloud services for those without very high speed Internet access and redundancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe Dot Matrix can explain how I can continue to work on this in a Metro App or equivalent. 

I ask because there is simply no way it can happen. 3D packages are so complex to use there is just no way for it to ever become a Metro or RT app. Wont happen, ever. Same with Photoshop. 

For that reason, the comment of power users will one day have apps that are based on metro or RT is just a delusion. It cant happen. 

The sheer complexity of most apps today for Windows is why a good 90% of them arnt in the App store today, nor will they ever be. Apps will be always be as dumb as they can for users running touch devices. Thats the market for apps like that. Try running Photoshop on a touch device and do what you see there with a finger. You simply cant, no matter how good you are. Thats the point that many of us are making and M$ are finally understanding with them adding mouse features and upgrading the desktop. Its a necessity. The desktop will never go away, its relied on by too many people, and businesses, and Metro just isnt upto the task of running complex programs like these at all in the way they are meant to be run. 

d1txaHa.jpg

Anyway back to the topic, start menu in the August update would be most welcome, and very much needed. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe Dot Matrix can explain how I can continue to work on this in a Metro App or equivalent. 

I ask because there is simply no way it can happen. 3D packages are so complex to use there is just no way for it to ever become a Metro or RT app. Wont happen, ever. Same with Photoshop. 

For that reason, the comment of power users will one day have apps that are based on metro or RT is just a delusion. It cant happen. 

The sheer complexity of most apps today for Windows is why a good 90% of them arnt in the App store today, nor will they ever be. Apps will be always be as dumb as they can for users running touch devices. Thats the market for apps like that. Try running Photoshop on a touch device and do what you see there with a finger. You simply cant, no matter how good you are. Thats the point that many of us are making and M$ are finally understanding with them adding mouse features and upgrading the desktop. Its a necessity. The desktop will never go away, its relied on by too many people, and businesses, and Metro just isnt upto the task of running complex programs like these at all in the way they are meant to be run. 

d1txaHa.jpg

Anyway back to the topic, start menu in the August update would be most welcome, and very much needed. 

 

It's posts like these that make it clear to me people don't quite get that metro isn't just the UI.   You're showing an example of an app that you're going to be using in full screen mode and not windowed, so the whole argument for metro apps being full screen is moot, not that it'll matter once they become able to be windowed later this year or early next.   Second, the WINRT framework and API can let you write these types of apps, it's not limited, if they can port big beefy Office apps to WinRT, which they're doing, I don't see why you think Photoshop or any other app of that size/complexity can't be ported.   WinRT apps can be fully written in C++ and use DX for graphics like, just like the apps you keep thinking of.  The fact is, the only thing holding these back is time and not any inherent lack of the system,  I wouldn't be so quick to toss out words such as "never" in this case.

 

Even UI wise there's nothing to stop it from being done, you're going to want to use those apps full screen anyways, I've always used photoshop in full screen personally.  Nothing in the UI says you can't have the same elements or even right click menus, it's all possible to do.  Just because those apps have lots of controls doesn't mean it can't be done, again, the Office apps have just as much complexity to them as others do and they're close to being released right now.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Someone needs to make an incredibly complex RT app just to show it can be done.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's posts like these that make it clear to me people don't quite get that metro isn't just the UI.   You're showing an example of an app that you're going to be using in full screen mode and not windowed, so the whole argument for metro apps being full screen is moot, not that it'll matter once they become able to be windowed later this year or early next.   Second, the WINRT framework and API can let you write these types of apps, it's not limited, if they can port big beefy Office apps to WinRT, which they're doing, I don't see why you think Photoshop or any other app of that size/complexity can't be ported.   WinRT apps can be fully written in C++ and use DX for graphics like, just like the apps you keep thinking of.  The fact is, the only thing holding these back is time and not any inherent lack of the system,  I wouldn't be so quick to toss out words such as "never" in this case.

 

Even UI wise there's nothing to stop it from being done, you're going to want to use those apps full screen anyways, I've always used photoshop in full screen personally.  Nothing in the UI says you can't have the same elements or even right click menus, it's all possible to do.  Just because those apps have lots of controls doesn't mean it can't be done, again, the Office apps have just as much complexity to them as others do and they're close to being released right now.

 

I am pretty sure his point is also that when you are working on something like this, you have multiple open folders with different files that you are accessing/ looking at. Therefore he is very likely to not keep it as full screen mode all the time (either snap) minimize or fast switching between folders or reference images. Not everyone has got multiple displays.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am pretty sure his point is also that when you are working on something like this, you have multiple open folders with different files that you are accessing/ looking at. Therefore he is very likely to not keep it as full screen mode all the time (either snap) minimize or fast switching between folders or reference images. Not everyone has got multiple displays.

 

Even if that's the case, as I pointed out, the whole "full screen only" limit is going away soon, so the argument against that is going to be a thing of the past.   My point still stands, the code, as far as winrt and what you can do with it, as far as I know, has no limiting factor in how complex you want to make an app.   Right now most are quick C# and or html+JS apps but they can just as well be full c++ apps and use DX for graphics support, like in the case of a 3D app which depends on it for rendering and overall performance. 

 

In the long run with winrt/metro coming more and more into the desktop through taskbar support and soon windowed mode support there's honestly little reason for developers to not try and make or port beefy productivity apps to it.   They're also showing how you can even bring over older WPF apps with little fuss as a sort of middle ground until you can fully port your app over.   Let's not also forget that they're going to keep working on WPF and even allow it to use parts of the system that so far only WinRT apps can access.    Don't be surprised if you end up seeing future WPF desktop apps that share/use WinRT/Metro  bits, that's where they're going to take it from the talks they gave at build.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not sure how people can complain about the Start Menu being full of useless stuff and being unusable and ancient, and then go on about how Start Screen is such a great way to use your computer, you can organise it and do all sorts of stuff with... like you can't do that with the Start Menu? :rofl:

 

The simple fact is, MS should have merged the two UI's together from the get go, an active desktop would be far better than a desktop and a Start Screen being seperate. They even have the handy button to hide all windows and show desktop in the bottom right that has been there for how many years now? Come on MS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm with what George P said. Just because you have an *ahem* fullscreen application with dozens of controls on it, doesn't mean the UI can't be cleaned up, and Modernized. Metro and WinRT is very much capable of 3D creation, and Photoshop work (Project Spark). It wouldn't take much work at all to start off a basic 3D modeler and build off it, or even just port a heavy duty modeler to Metro. You also don't need a mouse to create 3D models. It's not written in stone that 3D work cannot be done with other tools, including Kinect like devices.

 

"Never" is a dangerous word to say in computing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's posts like these that make it clear to me people don't quite get that metro isn't just the UI.   You're showing an example of an app that you're going to be using in full screen mode and not windowed, so the whole argument for metro apps being full screen is moot, not that it'll matter once they become able to be windowed later this year or early next.   Second, the WINRT framework and API can let you write these types of apps, it's not limited, if they can port big beefy Office apps to WinRT, which they're doing, I don't see why you think Photoshop or any other app of that size/complexity can't be ported.   WinRT apps can be fully written in C++ and use DX for graphics like, just like the apps you keep thinking of.  The fact is, the only thing holding these back is time and not any inherent lack of the system,  I wouldn't be so quick to toss out words such as "never" in this case.

 

Even UI wise there's nothing to stop it from being done, you're going to want to use those apps full screen anyways, I've always used photoshop in full screen personally.  Nothing in the UI says you can't have the same elements or even right click menus, it's all possible to do.  Just because those apps have lots of controls doesn't mean it can't be done, again, the Office apps have just as much complexity to them as others do and they're close to being released right now.

 

I agree with you here George. But I wouldn't call Office apps big beefy apps. Also, even though I agree with you, because we have yet to see this type of app in WinRT, and even some of the best ones struggle with complex functionality, we can only take everyone's word for it that the WinRT API can do everything that Win32 can. We have to conclude that developers are just being lazy. Look how clumsily Xbox Music indexes music and the fact that it has no device syncing. Is that just laziness, by design, or is it not easy to do with WinRT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree with you here George. But I wouldn't call Office apps big beefy apps. Also, even though I agree with you, because we have yet to see this type of app in WinRT, and even some of the best ones struggle with complex functionality, we can only take everyone's word for it that the WinRT API can do everything that Win32 can. We have to conclude that developers are just being lazy. Look how clumsily Xbox Music indexes music and the fact that it has no device syncing. Is that just laziness, by design, or is it not easy to do with WinRT?

MorganX - developers won't develop them because of all those users that can't (or won't) move to an OS supporting ModernUI - for whatever reason.  Developing for Win32 (if you are a Windows developer) is the safe choice, albeit also the conservative/chicken choice - what has Amazon done with their ModernUI version of the Kindle e-reader app since they have launched it, for example?  Other than Microsoft, developers are NOT bringing parity between ModernUI and Win32 versions of their apps.  However, I can't really fault the developers - it's very much chicken-and-egg there.  As long as Windows 7 (not 8+) is the lowest common Windows denominator in the minds of developers, why write ModernUI applications at all?  The result - what ModernUI applications we ARE seeing are lick-and-promise - like the early days of Win32.  (Yes - I DO remember the early days of Win32; remember, Windows NT 3.x was a niche OS at first,  The secondary reason for Windows 95 was, in fact, to jump-start Win32 development in terms of the application space.  Contrary to popular belief, other than Microsoft's own applications, early Win32 applications were NOT ported from Windows NT - in fact, they were genuine UNTOUCHED Windows NT applications - WinZip, the first versions of WinRAR, and Netscape Navigator were my first Win32 applications other than Office, and ALL came from NT.)

 

Throw in a LOT of anti-ModernUI FUD, if not outright fear, and what do YOU think would happen if a developer - any developer - actually made their ModernUI and Win32 applications functionally-equal?  Would we or would we NOT hear a hew and cry over (insert name of developer here) abandoning Win32/the desktop?

 

The lowest common denominator is STILL driving application development - you go where demand is.  Overall, it's mobile development - not general non-mobile-OS development; in terms of desktop-OS development, it's Win32.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree with you here George. But I wouldn't call Office apps big beefy apps. Also, even though I agree with you, because we have yet to see this type of app in WinRT, and even some of the best ones struggle with complex functionality, we can only take everyone's word for it that the WinRT API can do everything that Win32 can. We have to conclude that developers are just being lazy. Look how clumsily Xbox Music indexes music and the fact that it has no device syncing. Is that just laziness, by design, or is it not easy to do with WinRT?

There's many Metro apps that support Device Syncing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's many Metro apps that support Device Syncing.

 

I'm speaking primarily of music and Xbox Music to phones and media devices. Syncing a playlist for streaming is not syncing files ala Zune. I only know of one, Media Monkey.I

 

As for others, I'm not aware of any that device sync. There may be... The only one I personally would have a use for is Endomondo and Sportstracker which do not sync with the device, they sync with the web site, which syncs with the phone or device.

MorganX - developers won't develop them because of all those users that can't (or won't) move to an OS supporting ModernUI - for whatever reason.  Developing for Win32 (if you are a Windows developer) is the safe choice, albeit also the conservative/chicken choice - what has Amazon done with their ModernUI version of the Kindle e-reader app since they have launched it, for example?  Other than Microsoft, developers are NOT bringing parity between ModernUI and Win32 versions of their apps.  However, I can't really fault the developers - it's very much chicken-and-egg there.  As long as Windows 7 (not 8+) is the lowest common Windows denominator in the minds of developers, why write ModernUI applications at all?  The result - what ModernUI applications we ARE seeing are lick-and-promise - like the early days of Win32.  (Yes - I DO remember the early days of Win32; remember, Windows NT 3.x was a niche OS at first,  The secondary reason for Windows 95 was, in fact, to jump-start Win32 development in terms of the application space.  Contrary to popular belief, other than Microsoft's own applications, early Win32 applications were NOT ported from Windows NT - in fact, they were genuine UNTOUCHED Windows NT applications - WinZip, the first versions of WinRAR, and Netscape Navigator were my first Win32 applications other than Office, and ALL came from NT.)

 

Throw in a LOT of anti-ModernUI FUD, if not outright fear, and what do YOU think would happen if a developer - any developer - actually made their ModernUI and Win32 applications functionally-equal?  Would we or would we NOT hear a hew and cry over (insert name of developer here) abandoning Win32/the desktop?

 

The lowest common denominator is STILL driving application development - you go where demand is.  Overall, it's mobile development - not general non-mobile-OS development; in terms of desktop-OS development, it's Win32.

 

This. I think the only place we part on this topic, is that I believe that because what you say above is True, Microsoft should lead the charge by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

for me, typing out what you are looking for me seems like more work. For me, its "I see it, I click it" 

That is - by definition - pointing-device-centric behavior.

I don't have a problem with such behavior - and especially not if you're honest about it.

It's those that try and blow smoke p my posterior and say it's something else that I have a rather large issue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm speaking primarily of music and Xbox Music to phones and media devices. Syncing a playlist for streaming is not syncing files ala Zune. I only know of one, Media Monkey.I

 

As for others, I'm not aware of any that device sync. There may be... The only one I personally would have a use for is Endomondo and Sportstracker which do not sync with the device, they sync with the web site, which syncs with the phone or device.

 

This. I think the only place we part on this topic, is I believe because what you say above it True, Microsoft should lead the charge by example.

Which Microsoft is indeed trying to do (with OneDrive, Skype, Office, etc.).  However, part of the problem Microsoft itself faces is that even as it does what it can to actually provide examples of how functional equivalency between  Win32 and ModernUI can be possible, the fearmongers are jumping in, saying that this simply illustrates Microsoft's intention of killing the desktop application market.

 

Please - like improved ModernUI applications will kill the desktop market anytime soon.

 

I have stated - repeatedly - that Windows Explorer ties into OneDrive, and right now.  (This is easily provable - go to your OneDrive icon in Windows Explorer (or RTExplorer, if you are running an RT tablet) and open it.  Then drag a file from your local folders that is small enough to fit to a folder in OneDrive.  Once the folders sync (if you are online, they will sync at the speed of your connection), you have just copied a file - to the cloud - without going NEAR ModernUI, or a third-party application.)  If you are used to Explorer as file-management application (and I am) that is one monstrous advantage that OneDrive Explorer has to overcome.  OneDrive Explorer must be equal to File Explorer - in terms of functionality - to stand any chance of replacing it.  It's the same bar that applies to any ModernUI application - in that sense, I'm not treating Microsoft any different from any other application developer.  However, this same feature will require third-party cloud providers to enable their cloud-storage services to plug into File Explorer and/or OneDrive Explorer; IS there a common API for cloud-storage providers in the ModernUI API system?  If there IS a common API, it's on third parties - Google, MEGA, etc. - to leverage it.  If NOT, it behooves Microsoft and the rest of the stakeholders to create one.

 

This one feature is something that Win32 has not had since the abortive "Nashville/Memphis" of Windows 9x - the few third-party hacks since have not been as elegant as how OneDrive ties into File Explorer.  (In fact, its so elegant it is nearly invisible.)  It's something that any Windows 8+ user can use, if they use OneDrive - however, it can't be unique to OneDrive.

 

And don't assume that I want the feature to be desktop-exclusive - I definitely do NOT.  I don't expect to always be using a desktop-only computer or device.  At some point, I WILL want that feature to be found in ModernUI - if for no other reason than my not always being at my desktop computer.  That may well be the REAL rub - how many of those pointing-device-centric users are ALWAYS at a desktop-formfactor computer?  (They may run 7 at home, but 7, Vista, or XP at work.  Windows 8+ is too different from what they run at work - I get that much.)  Android has a file-navigation problem - so does iOS.  They have lots of casual games and apps - however, both blow when it comes to file navigation, let alone file management.  RT, for all its faults, doesn't blow in that area - it has the same file-navigation and management capabilities as Windows 8+ - and by design.  That is the REAL choice for users - what is more important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Like some have said, the complexity of modern apps is more to do with the target for them at this point, which is still touch first but once we can have Windowsed modern apps this thinking changes.  Since the store already shows you desktop apps, it's not an issue of a developer to list that their app needs a mouse+kb to work.  You'll see more "beefy" apps in time, I have little doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Add a few little extra little lighter blocks on the titlebar and we'll finally have the watercolour theme which was part of the Whistler betas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Like some have said, the complexity of modern apps is more to do with the target for them at this point, which is still touch first but once we can have Windowsed modern apps this thinking changes.  Since the store already shows you desktop apps, it's not an issue of a developer to list that their app needs a mouse+kb to work.  You'll see more "beefy" apps in time, I have little doubt.

George P - I don't buy that.  I think the REAL reason that ModernUI apps are largely so simple is that they were designed largely by mobile-app developers - who are used to thinking in terms of uncomplicated apps. MetroIRC and MetroTwit, for example, are two of the more complex ModernUI apps - and both were designed as UX-neutral from the beginning; further, neither excludes any method of interaction - unlike HootSuite for example, MetroTwit didn't require a mouse at all, or touch for that matter.  (Yes - you could use MetroTwit using strictly a keyboard alone.)  Simple works in mobile - it's why you don't see many complex Android or iOS apps - it has nothing to do with touch at all.  Complex mobile apps, in fact, usually fail, and fail rather badly - KISS (Keep It Simple, Son) is the mantra for mobile developers.  Desktop-targeted applications (regardless of what GUI they are targeting) can get rather busy - in many ways, they are EXPECTED to be *busy* (almost to the point of near-absurdity).  How many light (utilitarian practically) desktop applications have been dismissed as being too LIGHT?  (I can name two disc-burning applications that have been disparaged for committing just that "sin" - ImgBurn and CDBurnerXP - and both are freeware.  I personally use ImgBurn because of the lack of frills - it does what it needs to and nothing else.  It also works with any type of CD/DVD/BD drive Windows supports - if Windows sees it, ImgBurn can use it.  If BD burners hit DVD burner prices - and they are nearly there now - ImgBurn is ready.)  There may be a use for heavy - however, there is also a use for utilitarian.

 

Also, why must even a Win32 application rely on JUST a mouse and keyboard?  Office 2013 certainly doesn't - like all versions of Office before it, it can be navigated using a keyboard alone (the Alt-key shortcuts are STILL usable - and throughout Office) as well (for the first time) as there is actual touch support (again, it's Office-wide) - supporting touch didn't kill mouse support any more than it killed keyboard support.  ModernUI is a truly neutral UX - it works however you choose to.  It LOOKS like an uncomplicated (in comparison to Win32) UX because it largely is - unlike Win32, it makes no assumptions.  ModernUI - as a UI - is like ImgBurn - practically utilitarian.  That's certainly different compared to Win32 - and it's typically been seen only in mobile (where utilitarian makes sense).  That may be why there is that assumption - which I STILL call entirely wrong - that ModernUI is a touch-first (if not touch-only) UI; it's no more true of ModernUI than it is of Android.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I will definitely welcome this if only for two great features of the Windows 7 Start Menu:

 

  1. Jump lists (I used this extensively when I had Word and Excel pinned to my Start menu)
  2. Control Panel and My Documents expandability.

 

To me, those two features are a great reason to bring back the Start menu for non-touch computer users.  I know, you can pin Word and Excel to the taskbar and get the jump lists, but it's easier on the Start menu (at least for me).

 

Now all they need to do with the next update is remove and replace the Window Vista / 7 style icons for the Desktop (Computer, Recycle Bin, Control Panel, etc.) and the update them on File Explorer's ribbon.  Then it will feel more coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I will definitely welcome this if only for two great features of the Windows 7 Start Menu:

 

  1. Jump lists (I used this extensively when I had Word and Excel pinned to my Start menu)
  2. Control Panel and My Documents expandability.

 

To me, those two features are a great reason to bring back the Start menu for non-touch computer users.  I know, you can pin Word and Excel to the taskbar and get the jump lists, but it's easier on the Start menu (at least for me).

 

Now all they need to do with the next update is remove and replace the Window Vista / 7 style icons for the Desktop (Computer, Recycle Bin, Control Panel, etc.) and the update them on File Explorer's ribbon.  Then it will feel more coherent.

devHead - the very fact that Taskbar pinning - which came in with Windows 7 - did NOT go away is why the loss of the Start menu mattered extremely little to me at all.  I was able to use Taskbar pinning to avoid the Start menu, which is why I never really missed it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.