• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Yahoo news: Windows 9 concept: Saving Windows from itself with a focus on

Recommended Posts

techbeck    6,683

techbeck, I never - as in ever - said that adapting would be easy; haven't I, in fact, said that the change would be anything but?

Never said you did.

However, in all too many cases, resisting change is like trying to sweep back the tide with that broom - is it really worth the effort expended for little to no gain?

People will change. History has proven tho if forced to do so, or to quickly, there will be negative results. Touch devices are the future, but they have many limitations.

It's also why I asked whether it is the Start menu you want back, or tablets you want to die - some folks hate tablets as a platform - regardless of what OS is on them.

Where are you getting this? I didnt indicate either but since you brought it up....

Start Menu needs to come back, IMO, but not the old start menu. Something new/redesigned and there have been some interesting mock ups online. THen either have the option to manually choose the new or the old way, or make the OS auto sense/switch somehow. Then over time, like with previous Windows versions, phase out the old.

As far as tablets, I use a Surface Pro for work along side my laptop and I own 2 Android tablets that I use daily. I dont want tablets to die and I think there is a place for Windows on tablets. Just dont concentrate so much as designing for tablets that you leave the others left out, and feeling left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX    1,044

Metro apps don't make sense on the desktop, because by their nature, they're designed as full screen apps. It would make more sense to bring WinRT to the Desktop, so to "metro-ize" Desktop apps, and be able to download them from the Windows Store. Then, have some apps with full-screen versions -- that run on the Start Screen -- and windowed versions -- that run on the Desktop. You would click some "full screen" button on your Desktop app, and it would automatically bring you to the Start Screen version.

 

+1000 Yah, you get it. If people get built-in running Modern in a Windows it won't be what they imagine it will be. They are designed for full screen or snapped. What are devs supposed to do when they can be run in an arbitrarily scaled windows? That will ruing some of what's actually cool about Modern UI and apps that scale their UI gracefully to a known ratio. Excellent examples the 8.1 mail app, Official Facebook app.

 

If you're going to run modern apps in a windows you might as well scrap the modern UI and just bring the WinRT API to the desktop for fix WPF or something along those lines. That's probably what they should have done anyway, and created a different shell for tablets and phones.

post-59115-0-92945800-1387416408.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Anarkii    2,230

I think it's funny that those who hate the Modern UI so much actually want Modern UI apps to be windowed on the desktop. I think this just adds to the point that a lot of the dislike is not about Modern UI in general, but familiarity.

 

 

So, you would prefer the Modern UI in windowed apps on the desktop, and might actually use them, but you hate the Modern UI and don't want to ever see it? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

There are a lot of great Modern UI apps... BTW. Which just shows that those who don't use it really don't have a clue of what their missing. If you can't find some great Modern UI apps It either means you just don't have many uses for a computer in general, or many interests.

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nashy    1,660

Please - the whole argument from the anti-Modern side is that they should NOT co-exist - that ModernUI should be killed off, in favor of a return to a pointing-device-centric UI (ala Windows 7, which has not gone anywhere).

 

There are plenty of utilities that bring some form of Start menu to Windows 8 or 8.1 - both free AND fee.  However, that's not enough for the critics - nothing less than the return of Windows 7's Start menu suffices.

 

Why not simply go back to Windows 7?  It is still available from Microsoft, and will be supported by Microsoft for another few years.  (I've been pointing that out since the Developer Preview, and so has everyone else that has spoken in favor of - or defended - ModernUI - including Dot Matrix.)

 

What's the REAL reason that this bashfest has continually grown and grown, when issues for users can be fixed any number of ways?

 

Apparently there are enough good features in Windows 8.x - ModernUI aside - that make it worth keeping, even in the eyes of the critics.

 

However, those third-party utilities I've cited aren't enough.

 

What does Windows 7's Start menu have that NONE of the third-party utilities have?

 

You're wrong.  The biggest argument is that the user should be able to pick EITHER of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm    1,332

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are.

I've found that Code Writer and Trackage have been well-designed and functional apps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rfirth    740

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

 

Mint is pretty awesome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thomastmc    531

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

 

Adobe Photoshop Express. Great free app.

 

So by "bugger all good apps" you didn't mean that Modern UI apps are crap, but now that's exactly what you mean to say... Not to be confused with what you previously stated, obviously ;)

 

You're full of nonsensical statements today :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyn6    358

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

Just to name a few and in no particular order:

 

Netflix

Flipboard

Discourse

ESPN

Tweetro

Mail

Newegg

Fresh Paint

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX    1,044

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

 

Package Tracker

Mail 8.1 (only has one major flaw, inability to perform context actions on search results, the others are inherent in Modern UI, but it's really nice, especially snapped)

Newegg

Amazon.com

Alarm

eBay

NFL Fantasy Football

facebook

 

They're all smaller apps, there are no AAA apps, but most new AAA apps are games and those haven't come. The closest would be Pinball FX2 which should go on the list.

 

I wouldn't say Modern UI has to go, it just needs to keep improving and shouldn't get in the way of the desktop or make the desktop more cumbersome in any way. The Modern UI probably doesn't "belong" on the desktop and wasn't designed for it. Take context menus. Nothing more efficient than in place context menus. But this won't work on tablets so you have the top and bottom of screen context bars, with minimal context menus for finger friendliness. This is a drag on a desktop, sometimes a 27" dray. Just a waste of time throughout the day. It's going to be a long evolution and trial and error before MS gets it right or figures out what to really do with the desktop. Users shouldn't have to pay for that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigby    1,570

I still don't understand the point of apps like eBay and Newegg, at least on a desktop. Why not just use your browser?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoohki    9

There's a way not to see the m?tro ui ever, called classic shell and you skip m?tro interface.. You'll never see it ever again. People who want to use modern ui can do it, people who don't can do it. Want to be dictated what to do, buy a Mac..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,261

Never said you did.

People will change. History has proven tho if forced to do so, or to quickly, there will be negative results. Touch devices are the future, but they have many limitations.

Where are you getting this? I didnt indicate either but since you brought it up....

Start Menu needs to come back, IMO, but not the old start menu. Something new/redesigned and there have been some interesting mock ups online. THen either have the option to manually choose the new or the old way, or make the OS auto sense/switch somehow. Then over time, like with previous Windows versions, phase out the old.

As far as tablets, I use a Surface Pro for work along side my laptop and I own 2 Android tablets that I use daily. I dont want tablets to die and I think there is a place for Windows on tablets. Just dont concentrate so much as designing for tablets that you leave the others left out, and feeling left out.

Yes - touch does have limitations - however, how many of the limitations are due to software being unable to take advantage of it for any number of reasons?  (Given the capability variances simply of touch-screens that Windows 8 supports, I get why software will have issues; that is also why, even on a touch-screen PC - such as the aforementioned HP TouchSmart series - it is unlikely that even a person that has no issues with touch will go completely "Minority Report" - the applications haven't fully caught up yet.)

 

My biggest issue with the Start menu is that it concentrates so hard on the mouse or other pointing device that the keyboard is ignored - in short, it's similar to your complaint about ModernUI.  Keyboards aren't going anywhere - even on touch-screen hardware, there's still room for a keyboard (either physical or virtual).  Windows has keyboard shortcuts galore - many of them faster, by far, than mousing or using a pointing device.  The same is true of Linux distributions, BSDs, UNIX, OS X, etc. - it's a problem with most GUIs/GDEs, actually - they are so pointing-device-centric that it has dumbed down the user and forced them into pointing-device reliance.  (It's why I'm glad I held on to my copy - though quite dog-eared - of "Windows 2000 Professional for Dummies" - it has ALL of the core Windows-key shortcuts for that operating system - and all of them still work in Windows 8.1 today.  As old as the book is, it makes for a great memory-aid.)

 

Also, one other issue I have been trying to point out - ModernUI is actually more friendly to the keyboarder that lacks a pointing device altogether than the Start menu is.  That friendliness comes in handy for one reason - pointing devices fail.  All types of them fail.  If a pointing device is wireless, it will have multiple points of failure.  Murphy and his Law apples to all computers - being a traditional desktop gets you no passes from Senor Murphy.  Even old-school unpowered ball mice fail.

If a pointing-device goes toes-up (for whatever reason) in Windows 7, can you navigate around the Start menu without it?  More importantly, can the average user do so?  (Same issue applies to every other GUI on the planet.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dadwen    119

Hate to say it but out of most of the apps I've tried the web page version works better most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,261

I still don't understand the point of apps like eBay and Newegg, at least on a desktop. Why not just use your browser?

Because even those users of tabbed browsers - which are most users, as every browser that exists for Windows is tabbed - may prefer a single-purpose task-driven browserlet (which is exactly what the Newegg and eBay apps are) as opposed to even splitting off another browser tab.  Also, even modern browsers can have too MANY tabs open at once - which can lead to browser failure; if you are trying to complete an order when your browser fails - ARRRRGH! (I've seen that happen - in Windows 7 - to my Mom - in the middle of finishing an order via Amazon.)

 

Heck, I have three desktop browsers for a reason - different Web sites are, apparently, geared for different browser strengths.  Throw in sites written by individuals - who may have different quirks than Amazon, for example - and finding the "right" browser threatens to become Sisyphean.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX    1,044

Because even those users of tabbed browsers - which are most users, as every browser that exists for Windows is tabbed - may prefer a single-purpose task-driven browserlet (which is exactly what the Newegg and eBay apps are) as opposed to even splitting off another browser tab.  Also, even modern browsers can have too MANY tabs open at once - which can lead to browser failure; if you are trying to complete an order when your browser fails - ARRRRGH! (I've seen that happen - in Windows 7 - to my Mom - in the middle of finishing an order via Amazon.)

 

Heck, I have three desktop browsers for a reason - different Web sites are, apparently, geared for different browser strengths.  Throw in sites written by individuals - who may have different quirks than Amazon, for example - and finding the "right" browser threatens to become Sisyphean.

 

If you use Newegg and Amazon a lot like I do, the dedicated applets are much better. The Newegg app is particularly nice. It's only weakness is limited snap view, it's graceful to 1/4, at 1/3 they got a little lazy.

 

You can sell now from the ebay app, plus toast notifications for auctions and items watched are also nice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX    1,044

Adobe Photoshop Express. Great free app.

 

So by "bugger all good apps" you didn't mean that Modern UI apps are crap, but now that's exactly what you mean to say... Not to be confused with what you previously stated, obviously ;)

 

You're full of nonsensical statements today  :)

 

I didn't downloaded though ordinarily I would. Reviews said it doesn't support PNG. That's too much express to be useful. Shame on Adobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled    3,880

I have no interest in computers other than what I like doing on them. :/

 

I did at least explain what those things are. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George P    5,036

Using metro apps on the desktop in a window is just another extension of the 3 screens idea, it's choice.   If you can use the same app on your phone, tablet and then your desktop either full screen, snapped or windowed then that's even better for most users who like to stick with something once they've learned it.  It's also better for developers since it serves to grow the target area for winrt more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    9

Yeah but no one has ever answered the question of why do I, or any exclusively desktop type user (say for example in a large school, or office type environment), need the Modern UI at all? Why do we even need to interact with it, or with any part of it? It is after all essentially a touch centric interface. What use is this in a working environment? Do you think all my users should 'upgrade' to touch screen interfaces? Should we just ditch the mouse (which only costs a couple of $ at best) and replace all of these with expensive touch screen interfaces instead? And what about wear and tear? If a mouse screws up we just ditch it and bin it. If an expensive touch screen screws up, due to a large number of people pointing and prodding at it, then that's another matter entirely. Don't think it can happen? Then try having a look at a touch screen that has been in public use for a long time such as at an art gallery, or a museum. These things don't last forever and their lifetimes are much shorter than touch screens in the home. Even if this wasn't the case, it's still a cost most businesses would be unwilling to bare. (Let alone the cost of retraining staff how to use the new UI and the new hardware.)

Microsoft appear to have forgotten about their business users this time. They designed an interface that was largely tablet and touch centric and forgot that there are sound reasons why most businesses prefer cheap inexpensive desktops for the majority of their business activities. The result is that the majority of business users have opted to pass on Windows 8 this time and stick with windows 7 for the desktop - and then wait and see if MS somehow manages to come to its senses. The only way this will work is instead of being secretive about this stuff, they work directly with their customers and ask them what it is they want from a UI and what their needs are? Not so much 'Open Source', but listening to users instead of 'dictating' to them and telling them how things will be and how they might sometimes randomly decide to change everything without any kind of consultation whatsoever. They sprung "8" and modern "UI" as a surprise on most people, so the resulting fallout is hardly a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    9

There's a way not to see the m?tro ui ever, called classic shell and you skip m?tro interface.. You'll never see it ever again. People who want to use modern ui can do it, people who don't can do it. Want to be dictated what to do, buy a Mac..

Classic shell isn't part of Windows. Your 'choice' is an illusion. Nor is it wise or possible to run 'hacked' shell extenstions on a large scale on the desktop. Maybe it would work in your bedroom, but not at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rohdekill    768

If there were even a single metro app out there that exceeded in functionality or features than its desktop counterpart, I would agree to have metro apps on the desktop.  However, this is far, far from the case.  Most apps in the store have comments about crashes, riddled with ads, or numerous missing functionality.  I have $50 credit in the app store and yet can't find a single app worth installing simply because the desktop programs offer a thousand times more stability and functionality. They can candy coat metro apps all they want, but sooner or later people realize metro apps are simply crap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    9

I think the difficulty is that MS have tried to make two things fit together that don't really fit together - and that's a tablet UI and a desktop UI. That's the problem MS have to solve I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,261

Yeah but no one has ever answered the question of why do I, or any exclusively desktop type user (say for example in a large school, or office type environment), need the Modern UI at all? Why do we even need to interact with it, or with any part of it? It is after all essentially a touch centric interface. What use is this in a working environment? Do you think all my users should 'upgrade' to touch screen interfaces? Should we just ditch the mouse (which only costs a couple of $ at best) and replace all of these with expensive touch screen interfaces instead? And what about wear and tear? If a mouse screws up we just ditch it and bin it. If an expensive touch screen screws up, due to a large number of people pointing and prodding at it, then that's another matter entirely. Don't think it can happen? Then try having a look at a touch screen that has been in public use for a long time such as at an art gallery, or a museum. These things don't last forever and their lifetimes are much shorter than touch screens in the home. Even if this wasn't the case, it's still a cost most businesses would be unwilling to bare. (Let alone the cost of retraining staff how to use the new UI and the new hardware.)

Microsoft appear to have forgotten about their business users this time. They designed an interface that was largely tablet and touch centric and forgot that there are sound reasons why most businesses prefer cheap inexpensive desktops for the majority of their business activities. The result is that the majority of business users have opted to pass on Windows 8 this time and stick with windows 7 for the desktop - and then wait and see if MS somehow manages to come to its senses. The only way this will work is instead of being secretive about this stuff, they work directly with their customers and ask them what it is they want from a UI and what their needs are? Not so much 'Open Source', but listening to users instead of 'dictating' to them and telling them how things will be and how they might sometimes randomly decide to change everything without any kind of consultation whatsoever. They sprung "8" and modern "UI" as a surprise on most people, so the resulting fallout is hardly a surprise.

Nobody is saying that you HAVE to use ModernUI apps - not even DotMatrix.  Part of the problem ModernUI faces is that perception that it is entirely touch-centric - which is no more true of ModernUI than it is of Android or iOS.  Pointing devices are inexpensive for the same reason hard drives are - it's a mature (notice I did not say obsolescent or even obsolete) technology - how long have mice been around merely for PCs?  (Remember, the mouse predates Windows.)  Perception may equal reality in the eyes of a lot of people - especially when it comes to computers; however, is the perception true?

 

I have pointed out - time and again - that I was a major skeptic about ModernUI back when the Developer Preview leaked (7950, followed by 7989).  After all, how much experience did I have using Windows on touch-screen hardware?  I made plain exactly how much I had - none!  (It would, in fact, remain *none* until the HP TouchSmart 310 crossed my doorstoop a few weeks back.)  i ran the Developer Preview in dual-boot with Windows 7 - testing every game, applications, etc., possible - other than Start menu-isms, I have not had a single problem using desktop applications in Windows 8+ - from the Developer Preview release to 8.1 Pro with Media Center - which I am running today.

 

I run few ModernUI apps - mostly due to them not being capable enough in terms of displacing desktop apps.  I have no problems with THAT criticism of the ModernUI app ecosystem - because it's actually true.  However, how much of that is due to the developer itself deliberately hobbling their ModernUI app efforts so as to not detract from the desktop version of the same apps, if one exists?  (I've been exceptionally harsh in my criticism of Amazon's Kindle e-reader app for ModernUI - primarily due to a lack of synchronization with the Win32 version of the same app - is it ANY better at sync with a real Kindle?)  However, unlike Android or iOS, there's more to ModernUI than the app ecosystem.

 

ModernUI also applies to the UX that links everything together - desktop, Win32/Win64 applications, ModernUI apps, - the whole twenty-seven cubic yards. It's different from the Start menu -  is it ever.  However, how much has HARDWARE changed, merely since Windows 7 launched?  While desktops are still the primary shipping hardware type, how much do they actually comprise of what is selling - merely in terms of hardware running Windows?  Even those that have been relied on to measure new hardware sales (research companies such as Gartner and iSuppli) acknowledge that several new Windows hardware types are falling through the cracks - and it's NOT just RT hardware falling through them, either.  Even more telling, a lot of the new hardware types simply are NOT suitable homes for a pointing-device-centric UI/UX - which everyone admits the Start menu is.  Yet some of you insist on throwing these new device types under the bus simply because the new UI/UX scares you (or your users you support) silly.  Niche flavors of Windows have seldom done well;  the only one that has gotten any traction historically - since no less than Windows NT - was Windows XP Media Center Edition, and it was actually a superset - not subset - of Windows XP Professional (it had everything XP Pro did plus some features from Tablet PC Edition, and the Media Center bolt-on package); in fact, that entire feature stack remains available today (it got added back into the core of Windows with Vista Professional/Ultimate, and has remained there ever since).  However, the problem Microsoft was facing - and still is - remains - how do you adapt to new hardware types - where a pointing-device-centered UX is a non-starter - without breaking application compatibility.

 

ModernUI is no more a tablet UI than Android or iOS - and all three are on far more hardware than tablets.  It's not pointing-device-centered (which is identical to Android and iOS); however, it's not pointing-device-hostile, either (which is equally true of Android and iOS).  Actually, the bigger problem is that traditional-hardware users running Windows 8 or 8.1 DO use the keyboard more than any version of Windows since 2000 Professional - entirely due to the Start menu being axed.  In other words, the pointing-device centeredness of the Start menu being gone is the real issue - that is something I noted way back during the Developer Preview, and even commented on it being a migration issue with the Consumer Preview - and some of the critics of ModernUI grudgingly admit that they (or the users they support) are very pointing-device-centric - however, it was like pulling teeth to get that out of them.

 

jebus197 - why must a "desktop UI" be pointing-device-centric?  And what happens when you pointing device fails?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    9

Nobody is saying that you HAVE to use ModernUI apps - not even DotMatrix.  Part of the problem ModernUI faces is that perception that it is entirely touch-centric - which is no more true of ModernUI than it is of Android or iOS.  Pointing devices are inexpensive for the same reason hard drives are - it's a mature (notice I did not say obsolescent or even obsolete) technology - how long have mice been around merely for PCs?  (Remember, the mouse predates Windows.)  Perception may equal reality in the eyes of a lot of people - especially when it comes to computers; however, is the perception true?

 

I have pointed out - time and again - that I was a major sceptic about ModernUI back when the Developer Preview leaked (7950, followed by 7989).  After all, how much experience did I have using Windows on touch-screen hardware?  I made plain exactly how much I had - none!  (It would, in fact, remain *none* until the HP TouchSmart 310 crossed my doorstoop a few weeks back.)  i ran the Developer Preview in dual-boot with Windows 7 - testing every game, applications, etc., possible - other than Start menu-isms, I have not had a single problem using desktop applications in Windows 8+ - from the Developer Preview release to 8.1 Pro with Media Center - which I am running today.

 

I run few ModernUI apps - mostly due to them not being capable enough in terms of displacing desktop apps.  I have no problems with THAT criticism of the ModernUI app ecosystem - because it's actually true.  However, how much of that is due to the developer itself deliberately hobbling their ModernUI app efforts so as to not detract from the desktop version of the same apps, if one exists?  (I've been exceptionally harsh in my criticism of Amazon's Kindle e-reader app for ModernUI - primarily due to a lack of synchronization with the Win32 version of the same app - is it ANY better at sync with a real Kindle?)  However, unlike Android or iOS, there's more to ModernUI than the app ecosystem.

 

ModernUI also applies to the UX that links everything together - desktop, Win32/Win64 applications, ModernUI apps, - the whole twenty-seven cubic yards. It's different from the Start menu -  is it ever.  However, how much has HARDWARE changed, merely since Windows 7 launched?  While desktops are still the primary shipping hardware type, how much do they actually comprise of what is selling - merely in terms of hardware running Windows?  Even those that have been relied on to measure new hardware sales (research companies such as Gartner and iSuppli) acknowledge that several new Windows hardware types are falling through the cracks - and it's NOT just RT hardware falling through them, either.  Even more telling, a lot of the new hardware types simply are NOT suitable homes for a pointing-device-centric UI/UX - which everyone admits the Start menu is.  Yet some of you insist on throwing these new device types under the bus simply because the new UI/UX scares you (or your users you support) silly.  Niche flavors of Windows have seldom done well;  the only one that has gotten any traction historically - since no less than Windows NT - was Windows XP Media Center Edition, and it was actually a superset - not subset - of Windows XP Professional (it had everything XP Pro did plus some features from Tablet PC Edition, and the Media Center bolt-on package); in fact, that entire feature stack remains available today (it got added back into the core of Windows with Vista Professional/Ultimate, and has remained there ever since).  However, the problem Microsoft was facing - and still is - remains - how do you adapt to new hardware types - where a pointing-device-centered UX is a non-starter - without breaking application compatibility.

 

ModernUI is no more a tablet UI than Android or iOS - and all three are on far more hardware than tablets.  It's not pointing-device-centered (which is identical to Android and iOS); however, it's not pointing-device-hostile, either (which is equally true of Android and iOS).  Actually, the bigger problem is that traditional-hardware users running Windows 8 or 8.1 DO use the keyboard more than any version of Windows since 2000 Professional - entirely due to the Start menu being axed.  In other words, the pointing-device centeredness of the Start menu being gone is the real issue - that is something I noted way back during the Developer Preview, and even commented on it being a migration issue with the Consumer Preview - and some of the critics of ModernUI grudgingly admit that they (or the users they support) are very pointing-device-centric - however, it was like pulling teeth to get that out of them.

 

jebus197 - why must a "desktop UI" be pointing-device-centric?  And what happens when you pointing device fails?

I sure as hell am not forking out hundreds of $$ a time for touch sensitive screens, when I can get a mouse for a couple of bucks and an entire complete desktop solution, for the same price I would pay for a single screen. And BTW iOS and Android ARE almost exclusively touch sensitive interfaces, so I have no idea what stupendously pertinent point you are trying to make there. What happens when my pointing device fails? Well I go to the storeroom where we keep these things and pick up another one son. There things tend to last for several years, so thankfully this is a rare occurrence. I would cut my users fingers off if I caught them jabbing their fat greasy digits at my screens.

No one is arguing for a 'desktop environment' on a tablet (that's just 'dumb and dumber'), what is being stated is that in a business environment, which largely runs exclusively desktop centric workstations, no one I know of has even the remotest interest in using the Modern UI. It doesn't fit into anything we do and none of the apps are particularly (or even nearly) useful for real productivity purposes. We don't officially allow access to 'Twitter', or 'Facebook' on office/work based machines and these have nothing to do with what we as an organisation do. So even though they might impress you and your twittering chums, they are of little use in many large corporate type environments. Sure a lot of companies have social networking divisions, but these are usually part of the publicity and public relations dept. And guess what, even here most of the content is produced in a desktop environment.

I couldn't care less if MS split modern UI and the desktop and offered sperate solutions for the desktop, phone and tablet, just as Apple do. Then you could have what you wanted and I could have what I wanted. (Currently we offer iOS and Android devices for mobile computing purposes anyway.) But right now trying to stitch both the modern UI and the desktop together is a bit like trying to stitch the bottom half of a bird and the top half of a frog together. They might work famously when separated, but when you stitch them together you end up with an almost Frankenstein type mess.

Anyway I am bowing out of this discussion. Reason: extremely low quality of debate, verging on the nonsensical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,414

Show me one modern app that is half decent.

All I ask for is one.

And I said metro UI is crap, I didnt say at the time that metro apps are crap, but they are. 

 

Star Chart

Bing Weather

Facebook

Flipboard

Outlook

OneNote

Photoshop Express

Evernote

Metrotube

iHeartRadio

Kindle

Maps Preview

MyServer 2012 R2

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.