Windows 8 Sales are actually Amazing - 40 million sold

[HawkMan]

Additionally, countless Windows programs depend on this functionality as this allows them to ensure they open the default browser instead of figuring out what browsers users have installed (the app sends the url to the API as if it were a file to execute). So it isn't that arcane or odd.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not... But if you are... I'd recommend you read some of the fundamentals of the craft such as Hunt's The Pragmatic Programmer and understand why the DRY Principal he mentions is considered a fundamental part of software engineering.

You can also Google it... But actually learning the concepts is far more important.

The point is that the search dialog uses entirely different code and calls form the run dialog, but it can still do the same thing. Sure they could use the old run dialog code to do stuff the search dialog can already do. OR they could more effectively just let the search dialog do all the stuff itself, more efficiently and without calling other code.

OR is your idea of effective coding to first check if the code is a call for a local executable (btw at this point, it can already execute it), then if it finds out it is, then it passes on the call to the run dialog...

seriously, THINK about it.

and if hands are already on the keyboard it's slower just to take your hands off the keyboard and put it on the mouse.

win+e then type. allt+tab then type, win+# then type.

normally the site I'm looking for is already open in one of my 30+ tabs though.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

The point is that the search dialog uses entirely different code and calls form the run dialog, but it can still do the same thing. Sure they could use the old run dialog code to do stuff the search dialog can already do. OR they could more effectively just let the search dialog do all the stuff itself, more efficiently and without calling other code.

OR is your idea of effective coding to first check if the code is a call for a local executable (btw at this point, it can already execute it), then if it finds out it is, then it passes on the call to the run dialog...

seriously, THINK about it.

win+e then type. allt+tab then type, win+# then type.

normally the site I'm looking for is already open in one of my 30+ tabs though.

No, my point is the RUN dialog and the Search function "run" capabilities share the same underpinnings. Otherwise, MS would be violating the DRY principal by having two separate pieces of code doing the same thing in two places. The RUN dialog and the "run" functionality in search are merely two separate windows into the same room.

[MorganX]

It's far from even being a Windows-only (or even OS/distribution-only) dilemma - look at the earlier-in-this-thread comparison between Adobe Creativity Suite (CS) products and Microsoft Office products; even on OS X - which has far greater UI cohesiveness than even Windows pre-8; look at how the Adobe CS products behave within that UI compared to Microsoft Office products. Different approaches to the same problem. Heck - just look at the differences between Pagemaker and Word (again, on OS X, not Windows).

Don't necessarily disagree with your point or conclusion but comparing Adobe Graphic Design software to Office Products, and PageMaker (InDesign for some time now :) to Word, is like comparing apple's to oranges.

and if hands are already on the keyboard it's slower just to take your hands off the keyboard and put it on the mouse.

I don't know about that one. We're so well trained, even novice users can slide that right hand over and grab that mouse pretty darn quick.

[HawkMan]

No, my point is the RUN dialog and the Search function "run" capabilities share the same underpinnings. Otherwise, MS would be violating the DRY principal by having two separate pieces of code doing the same thing in two places. The RUN dialog and the "run" functionality in search are merely two separate windows into the same room.

Except they don't, the search dialog by it's function has to do thing other ways than the run at an earlier stage, and at that stage it can already launch the app. so they don't share the same principles, not in any meaningful way that would make it any way sensible for them to share the same code.

[MorganX]

it's not just the start screen. it's metro apps in general. The messaging map give you absolutely no option to turn it off. it's on perpetually and everytime someone sends me a message it give me no way to stop the annoying pop-up box on the desktop informing me I have a message. Trying to uninstall that particular app uninstalls 3 or 4 others including the calendar and mail, and people apps. This is a product that Microsoft should truly be sorry for. This is the 'batman and robin' of OS's. I get why they tried to do and I think that's cool. It was executed so horribly

I agree with you, Metro apps, particularly Microsoft's, are unfinished and IMO, and an embarrassment. The decision to bundle the core messaging apps was a choice.

I wouldn't write of Windows 8 though. Aside from the apps, and that is big, I only truly miss unified search and the ability to perform context actions on the result with the click of a mouse. You can still do that if you search with Explorer in the desktop environment. The Modern UI simply will not be able to duplicate that productivity.

Someone here used fast an efficient in the same sentence with Modern UI Search. I need some of whatever they're smoking.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Except they don't, the search dialog by it's function has to do thing other ways than the run at an earlier stage, and at that stage it can already launch the app. so they don't share the same principles, not in any meaningful way that would make it any way sensible for them to share the same code.

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying here... The RUN dialog has to pass its "run" command to the OS to tell it to execute the application. The Start Screen "run functionality" has to do the exact same thing. Sure, it has to do searches and a variety of other tasks, but once it has decided it needs to do "run functionality" then it has to pass that off to the OS somehow. Unless you're implying that the Start Screen is executing that code itself independent of the OS it is running on?

The RUN dialog really isn't doing anything but calling whatever API endpoint MS has exposed for starting processes. I'm sure this is the same endpoint used by Explorer itself and all over the OS.

The dialog itself was not what I was referring to.

[HawkMan]

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying here... The RUN dialog has to pass its "run" command to the OS to tell it to execute the application. The Start Screen "run functionality" has to do the exact same thing. Sure, it has to do searches and a variety of other tasks, but once it has decided it needs to do "run functionality" then it has to pass that off to the OS somehow. Unless you're implying that the Start Screen is executing that code itself independent of the OS it is running on?

The RUN dialog really isn't doing anything but calling whatever API endpoint MS has exposed for starting processes. I'm sure this is the same endpoint used by Explorer itself and all over the OS.

The dialog itself was not what I was referring to.

That's completely irrelevant of your original argument though, as that's the execution call, which is used not just by run, Search, but also shortcuts, other programs, start screen, ANYTHING that launches ANYTHING on the OS. and is not even part of the run dialog as such. just something it uses on the same line as search.

This was not your argument, you said the run dialog had to be kept and that search used the run dialog code. that is something completely different form using the execute call. The run dialog is far more than just the execute, call, which again isn't part of it, but rather part of the core OS.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

That's completely irrelevant of your original argument though, as that's the execution call, which is used not just by run, Search, but also shortcuts, other programs, start screen, ANYTHING that launches ANYTHING on the OS. and is not even part of the run dialog as such. just something it uses on the same line as search.

This was not your argument, you said the run dialog had to be kept and that search used the run dialog code. that is something completely different form using the execute call. The run dialog is far more than just the execute, call, which again isn't part of it, but rather part of the core OS.

This thread has been moving pretty quickly today so I'll forgive you for pulling my statements out of context.

I never said the run dialog had to be kept. I merely stated that it should be kept.

I later responded to a post from Dot Matrix that stated the run dialog should be removed because the code is redundant. My point was simply that the code doing the same task between the two isn't repeated and is most likely shared, as long as MS adhered to good engineering principals.

[scaramonga]

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

Very much agreed. I needed the distraction from work ;)

[PGHammer]

You're talking about using a consumer-oriented OS like some kind of nerd's plaything, which is never going to happen. You're most likely the one person still using the archaic run dialog that should have been stripped from windows in Windows 7.

Dot, you know better than that - I have personally told of using the Runbox in Windows 8 (and Server 2012, for that matter) to avoid two issues that have plagued all versions of Windows (desktop and server) - desktop-shortcut clutter and (starting with Vista/7) Taskbar-Superbar pin clutter. (With the Start menu itself gone, my biggest reason for leveraging Run also went away - however, that does NOT take away from the usefulness of the Runbox - especially since it's the ONE area that the addition of Index Server to the Windows core - starting with Windows 2000 - has always and never-failingly worked.)

The more I use an application, the LESS likely I am to create either a desktop shortcut OR pin said application to the Taskbar or Superbar, for the simple reason that I can Runbox the application in question. (Thanks to Index Server, the Run dialog actually has a memory - it remembers the fifteen last-used commands, batchfiles, scriptlets (including PoiwerShell scriptlets) - and it's been in there since Windows 2000. That is, in fact, why I don't miss the application shortcuts that Office hasn't created by default since Office 2003 for ANY of the applications - Office 2000 only created a shortcut for Outlook by default.)

[I am Not PCyr]

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

what ever he says he gets you doing it wrong..

and i'd say they are losing if this was a debate.

atleast i tried to sya linked to the topic at hand lol

some of these cheerleaders lose it and go off about using the mouse for 13 pages or whatever lol

why would zoom in on one micro aspect of how this one guy uses windows ?

insist "he's doing it wrong" ?

DotMatrix what is you deal buddy ?

I'm really wondering if you have issues or something..

Why are people not allowed to have their own way of using windows or opinions other than butt kissing about win 8 ?

[Dot Matrix]

DotMatrix what is you deal buddy ?

I'm really wondering if you have issues or something..

Why are people not allowed to have their own way of using windows or opinions other than butt kissing about win 8 ?

I'd rather see Microsoft streamline Windows. Strip away the outdated components, and unify what's left. Unless you're Andrea Borman, do we really need compatibility all the way back to the earliest days of the desktop? Do we really need options for every damn little toggle in the OS? Do we need all this excess baggage in Windows?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I'd rather see Microsoft streamline Windows. Strip away the outdated components, and unify what's left. Unless you're Andrea Borman, do we really need compatibility all the way back to the earliest days of the desktop? Do we really need options for every damn little toggle in the OS? Do we need all this excess baggage in Windows?

So, you want MS to throw out Windows and start fresh? You should ask Netscape how that worked out for them...

[Dot Matrix]

So, you want MS to throw out Windows and start fresh? You should ask Netscape how that worked out for them...

It's essentially what they've started to do with Windows 8.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

It's essentially what they've started to do with Windows 8.

Not really. They are trying new tricks on the old horse hoping to get it ahead in a new race, but they are racing the same horse. If they were to seriously kick legacy support in Windows to the wayside to the extreme you want they will fade to history faster than the Olson twins.

In the new race they want Windows to get into MS has no serious pull with consumers or developers so they need that legacy card to offer them some possible advantage.

Luckily for them you're not running the show otherwise they'd be looking a lot like RIM.

[Dot Matrix]

Not really. They are trying new tricks on the old horse hoping to get it ahead in a new race, but they are racing the same horse. If they were to seriously kick legacy support in Windows to the wayside to the extreme you want they will fade to history faster than the Olson twins.

In the new race they want Windows to get into MS has no serious pull with consumers or developers so they need that legacy card to offer them some possible advantage.

Luckily for them you're not running the show otherwise they'd be looking a lot like RIM.

Extreme? If your app is pre-XP then that's on you. If your company is still actively deploying crap that's pre-2001, that should be on you, not Microsoft. Any code pre-2000's should be considered fair game for the chopping block. To be honest, any reputable software maker should be up to date with Windows 7.

But, yes, they are essentially starting over with Windows 8.

Start Menu - GONE.

Networking window - GONE.

Old Search window - GONE.

Dialog boxes - GONE.

etc...

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Extreme? If your app is pre-XP then that's on you. If your company is still actively deploying crap that's pre-2001, that should be on you, not Microsoft. Any code pre-2000's should be considered fair game for the chopping block. To be honest, any reputable software maker should be up to date with Windows 7.

That's where you show how truly clueless you are. Each Windows release builds upon the last. So the #1 software on Windows depending on pre-XP code is Windows itself! If MS drew a line in the sand and stripped anything pre-XP then Windows 8 wouldn't even boot...

[Dot Matrix]

That's where you show how truly clueless you are. Each Windows release builds upon the last. So the #1 software on Windows depending on pre-XP code is Windows itself! If MS drew a line in the sand and stripped anything pre-XP then Windows 8 wouldn't even boot...

Vista+ was coded from the Server codebase, not XP. Anything stripped can be replaced by Modern components or unified elsewhere in the system. The Control Panel for one should have been unified under the Modern UI. Microsoft can finally get rid of all these damn control widgets that plague the OS.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Vista+ was coded from the Server codebase, not XP.

:huh: And the "Server code base" came from where? Do you honestly think MS rewrites Windows from scratch regularly? Surely you're not that delusional Dot.

[Dot Matrix]

:huh: And the "Server code base" came from where? Do you honestly think MS rewrites Windows from scratch regularly? Surely you're not that delusional Dot.

Do we really need to go all the way back? My point being is, Windows carries so much legacy baggage that it's overdue for a complete overhaul. At some point in time you have to draw the line. A similar point passed around Vista's time. You saw what happened with XP... it was being picked apart by malware after malware. Now, Windows is being picked apart by slimmer, more agile operating systems. Surely that's not cause for concern? Did you not just read the news where users are concerned with the amount of space Windows takes up? Buy a 32 GB Windows tablet, and tell me, how much space do you have left? What do you want Microsoft to do?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Do we really need to go all the way back? My point being is, Windows carries so much legacy baggage that it's overdue for a complete overhaul. At some point in time you have to draw the line. A similar point passed around Vista's time. You saw what happened with XP... it was being picked apart by malware after malware. Now, Windows is being picked apart by slimmer, more agile operating systems. Surely that's not cause for concern? Did you not just read the news where users are concerned with the amount of space Windows takes up? Buy a 32 GB Windows tablet, and tell me, how much space do you have left?

As I said earlier, Microsoft is hoping this legacy support will be their saving grace. So, they don't agree with you here.

Microsoft has deliberately chosen to offer "full" Windows in the tablet space and not a slimmer and leaner mobile focused OS, like they do with Windows Phone. They are hoping that users want this legacy support and that developers do as well. Is MS right? Who knows. But I do know one thing. If users are allowed to pick an OS in mobile they largely don't choose Windows, irrespective of variant. So without the legacy card MS comes to the table with nothing in the new race and they are already a few laps behind.

[Dot Matrix]

As I said earlier, Microsoft is hoping this legacy support will be their saving grace. So, they don't agree with you here.

Microsoft has deliberately chosen to offer "full" Windows in the tablet space and not a slimmer and leaner mobile focused OS, like they do with Windows Phone. They are hoping that users want this legacy support and that developers do as well. Is MS right? Who knows. But I do know one thing. If users are allowed to pick an OS in mobile they largely don't choose Windows, irrespective of variant. So without the legacy card MS comes to the table with nothing in the new race and they are already a few laps behind.

If they're dragging the legacy support with them on purpose, then why is the desktop on RT a dead duck? I can't so **** on the desktop besides run Office, and that's Microsoft's own doing!

[+LogicalApex MVC]

If they're dragging the legacy support with them on purpose, then why is the desktop on RT a dead duck? I can't so **** on the desktop besides run Office, and that's Microsoft's own doing!

The better question is if the Desktop is a dead duck that is being primed for slaughter then why is it on RT at all to any serious extent? Office could have been sandboxed into a very limited desktop experience.

[Dot Matrix]

The better question is if the Desktop is a dead duck that is being primed for slaughter then why is it on RT at all to any serious extent? Office could have been sandboxed into a very limited desktop experience.

Which is why I believe you're going to see the Metro-ification of more elements in Windows 9. Hell maybe even in "Blue".