• 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

jebus197    9

My guess is that MS probably will split out the Modern UI from desktop versions. whether ModernUI lives on after this remains to be seen, but certainly MS must intend to use some elements of Modern UI in their future tablet and phone editions. But things can change on the drop of a hat pin. There are a lot of now forgotten MS technologies we once all stressed we would have to live with forever. 

Share this post


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

My guess is that MS probably will split out the Modern UI from desktop versions. whether ModernUI lives on after this remains to be seen, but certainly MS must intend to use some elements of Modern UI in their future tablet and phone editions. But things can change on the drop of a hat pin. There are a lot of now forgotten MS technologies we once all stressed we would have to live with forever.

I disagree. Microsoft has shown no signs of backing away from their "One Microsoft" direction. And there are no "desktop versions" of Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeChipshop    3,458

Completely false. The argument has always been for choice, choice the "pro-Modern" crowd have been utterly terrified of.

 

 

Not really. What's more choice than having both? Like the desktop, use it, prefer the Modern UI, use it. That right there is choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Method Man    1,612

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..

 

 

Lets say I did that. Installed Win 8 and one of those programs.

 

What happens when I hit Win+P to change my display config?

Share this post


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

Lets say I did that. Installed Win 8 and one of those programs.

 

What happens when I hit Win+P to change my display config?

What's wrong with the Win+P menu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,258

Not really. What's more choice than having both? Like the desktop, use it, prefer the Modern UI, use it. That right there is choice.

Precisely; if anything, the argument is (on the part of the anti-ModernUI crowd) for less choice - not more.

 

Who is thinking that I run a bunch of ModernUI apps?  I have stated, rather bluntly, that most ModernUI apps don't measure up compared to their desktop counterparts - even from the same developer; however, that doesn't mean that ModernUI is less useful; remember, desktop applications (even games) run just fine - if anything, that makes the competition for ModernUI apps all the harder, because (outside of WindowsRT), there ARE those desktop applications which run just fine, despite the Start menu being gone.  But the "It's all about the apps!" thinking is, crazily enough, Android/iOS-type thinking - why would such apply to Windows 8 or 8.1 on Intel hardware - whether it's a touch-screen or not?

ModernUI is about more than apps - far more.  The very fact that desktop applications (and desktop games as well) run just fine makes it all the more difficult for ModernUI apps to get traction - if anything, that separates good developers from bad - and is something that Android and iOS both lack.  It's also a big problem for WindowsRT - where it actually IS "all about the apps", as RT doesn't have that desktop software advantage that Windows 8 does.  (But that's the side-battle - RT vs. Windows 8.x - not the main event.)

The "main event" - for anti-Modern users - is something that is not really the case, or even planned - Windows 7 vs. Windows 8.x.  Where has Windows 7 gone?  It's going to be sold, and supported, for quite a stretch yet - only XP is going away in the short term; even Vista will still be around and supported until 2017.  Besides, even if you HAVE a touch-screen PC (regardless of formfactor), what is stopping you from using a keyboard and pointing device with it?  Absolutely nothing (unless the hardware doesn't include support for USB or Bluetooth).  It's making Mount Everest out of a molehill - it's not even a regulation anthill (again, except for RT).

 

On the one hand, you complain that ModernUI apps are bad (compared to those mature and solid desktop counterparts); however, on the OTHER hand, you state - rather vociferously - that there is no place for that style of app in Windows.

Quite aside from ModernUI, there are all those folks that run various Android VM software (BlueStacks, Genymotion/AndroVM, old-fashioned Android VMs in Oracle VB, vmWare, and even Hyper-V, etc.) that would respectfully disagree - half the time, it's not JUST developers that run Android in a VM on their Windows (even 7) PCs - it's due to a missing app that they actually like or use on Android that is NOT found in Win32 or ModernUI form.  Between bad or outright missing apps, that is ModernUI's biggest flaw as an app ecosystem - and I agree with the anti-Modern posters on that subject.  However, you demonstrate that tunnel-vision again by basically dismissing the usefulness of ModernUI outside the app ecosystem.  Windows 8 (or 8.1) is NOT WindowsRT - 8.x has that desktop application and game library that RT lacks - they have the UX and UI in common - other than that and some apps (all of which they have in common are the ModernUI side), that is their entire commonality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Athernar    611

Where has Windows 7 gone?

 

Where has DirectX 11.1 and 11.2 on Windows 7 gone?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    9

I disagree. Microsoft has shown no signs of backing away from their "One Microsoft" direction. And there are no "desktop versions" of Windows.

I disagree with your disagreement lol. I wonder WTF I have been using for the best part of the last 16 years then? :p I'm not arguing with someone who thinks a tablet OS is the be all and end all to interface design. There may be no 'sign' of them backing away from their current strategy, but given the level of debate and the slow and very low rates of adoption of Windows 8 among business users, they would be insane if they didn't listen. History is littered with great idea MS thought we all needed and wanted to buy into. But their main pay-checks don't come from home users, so we will see if MS' nerve holds or not, or if their bowels give way and they listen to their real customers in time for the next release.

MS seem to have a history of this, a good version of Windows is followed by a bad version, then a good version and so on. most business users will tend to skip a release cycle or two anyway, not least because MS's track record can be very hit and miss.

But the bottom line is ModernUI doesn't work in the environment I work in on a daily basis. Simple as that ...

Share this post


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

I disagree with your disagreement lol. I wonder WTF I have been using for the best part of the last 16 years then? :p I'm not arguing with someone who thinks a tablet OS is the be all and end all to interface design. There may be no 'sign' of them backing away from their current strategy, but given the level of debate and the slow and very low rates of adoption of Windows 8 among business users, they would be insane if they didn't listen. History is littered with great idea MS thought we all needed and wanted to buy into. But their main pay-checks don't come from home users, so we will see if MS' nerve holds or not, or if their bowels give way and they listen to their real customers in time for the next release.

MS seem to have a history of this, a good version of Windows is followed by a bad version, then a good version and so on. most business users will tend to skip a release cycle or two anyway, not least because MS's track record can be very hit and miss.

But the bottom line is ModernUI doesn't work in the environment I work in on a daily basis. Simple as that ...

You're ignoring the fact that many are in the middle of testing and deploying Windows 7, and have been for the past few years. Just because business isn't jumping at the opportunity to start that process all over again doesn't mean anything. As a student, I have been very productive on the OS, and it hasn't stopped me from accomplishing what I could before. There are many more reasons why I am *more* productive because of Metro.

If you're seeing only in "black" and "white," than that isn't helping you. In terms of the devices available on the market today, there is no "black" and "white." A PC isn't always a PC in the traditional sense anymore, and hasn't been for the past few years. Trying to hold onto old habits isn't going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Lets say I did that. Installed Win 8 and one of those programs.

 

What happens when I hit Win+P to change my display config?

I just tried that, with Classic Shell installed and in the desktop environment. The blue thingy on the right hand side pops out with "project to a connected screen"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fourjays    106

I'd rather they focused on fixing the shortcomings of the Modern UI than going back to an old and eventually obsolete paradigm. There is far more potential in Modern UI than the "classic desktop", but it needs some degree of focus and direction from Microsoft.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

I'd rather they focused on fixing the shortcomings of the Modern UI than going back to an old and eventually obsolete paradigm. There is far more potential in Modern UI than the "classic desktop", but it needs some degree of focus and direction from Microsoft.

 

How so?  

 

Geez you guys, I fail to see how the desktop is "old and eventually obsolete".  It is going to be a nightmare getting a full Blender, 3DS MAX, and other programs in the modern UI.  The modern UI will not fit for programs like these.  Unless you want to go through menu after menu to find a tool you need vs having all tools visible like it is now.

 

Classic desktop allows me to see more than two things at once, and gives me complete freedom on what the sizes of each elements are.

 

How is there far more potential in modern ui?  All it appears to me is a useless screen waster.  Full screen apps on my 27" monitor does not make any sense AT ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,579

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.

 

I would -and have- been arguing that Metro is not touch-centric, merely the most touch-capable interface Microsoft had come up with so far. I've been using Windows 8, in both the Metro and desktop environments, for over a year now. With a mouse and keyboard - it works perfectly. I've only recently gotten a Surface RT, and now have a taste of it on a touch device. I'd actually say Windows 8 is still slightly better with a traditional mouse and keyboard than with a touchscreen.

 

Since until 3 weeks ago I'd never even touched a Win 8-based tablet, I honestly don't see Metro as a "tablet" UI, but rather one which works on both traditional computers and tablets.

 

As for what use Metro is in a working environment . . . First there's the Start Screen, the most usable launcher (IMO) we've gotten since Program Manager was ditched. For me, no more Start Menu alone was worth the upgrade. The rest would come down to personal preference. Unless you need a dozen windows open at once, I don't see any real reason why you can't do work in Metro, at least once some more robust programs come out.

 

I don't see anything that's solely for the tablet with Windows 8 - the Metro side works with either, and the desktop is still as mouse-centric as ever.

 

I really don't know why people insist on claiming that Metro/Modern is touch-only or touch-first. It's simply adding another type of interaction. Nothing is being ditched, at least at the moment. Mouse and keyboard aren't being phased out - even the Surface still benefits greatly from them. That's why the type cover is offered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How so?

Geez you guys, I fail to see how the desktop is "old and eventually obsolete". It is going to be a nightmare getting a full Blender, 3DS MAX, and other programs in the modern UI. The modern UI will not fit for programs like these. Unless you want to go through menu after menu to find a tool you need vs having all tools visible like it is now.

Classic desktop allows me to see more than two things at once, and gives me complete freedom on what the sizes of each elements are.

How is there far more potential in modern ui? All it appears to me is a useless screen waster. Full screen apps on my 27" monitor does not make any sense AT ALL.

The desktop UI is long in the tooth because people are interacting with devices in more ways than just the traditional Kb+M. Windows is moving now to an all around UI that is accessible across different devices without having the need to support dozens of different SKUs. In the PC market, there is no more "black and white" to differentiate devices anymore, making one unified SKU the best choice possible.

BTW, on Metro, I can see more than two things at once as well. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fourjays    106

How so?  

 

Geez you guys, I fail to see how the desktop is "old and eventually obsolete".  It is going to be a nightmare getting a full Blender, 3DS MAX, and other programs in the modern UI.  The modern UI will not fit for programs like these.  Unless you want to go through menu after menu to find a tool you need vs having all tools visible like it is now.

 

Classic desktop allows me to see more than two things at once, and gives me complete freedom on what the sizes of each elements are.

 

How is there far more potential in modern ui?  All it appears to me is a useless screen waster.  Full screen apps on my 27" monitor does not make any sense AT ALL.

Like it or not the desktop as a form factor is going to disappear, with perhaps only serious professional environments (rendering, programming, etc) seeing them remain in use for sheer power. Maybe not in the immediate future, but sooner or later. The large majority of people will end up on tablets or hybrids where the traditional desktop UI shows its age - try using the desktop with a touchscreen and you'll soon be screaming murder at it.

There is more potential in Modern UI because it is a clean break. They don't have to worry about 20 years worth of backwards compatibility so can concentrate on moving forward rather than supporting libraries and UI paradigms that should have been long ago improved or replaced.

And I agree, the Modern UI will not fit programs like Blender, Photoshop, etc. As it stands it seems it is difficult just trying to make Office work in it. Many of the apps are too tablet oriented and not nearly adaptable enough. But there is no reason why it can't be adapted to suit other kinds of software. It needs some thought and direction from Microsoft to make it happen, and the encouragement for apps to copy of one biggest elements of the modern Internet - responsive design. For example, you open Photoshop on a tablet and you get a simpler UI with the most likely features needed immediately available. Then you flip the device into "laptop" mode and the whole kit unlocks for doing work. Open it on a desktop and you never see the tablet mode.

Don't get me wrong, I still use the desktop a LOT. But I can't see it going anywhere new and it is unlikely to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,258

I would -and have- been arguing that Metro is not touch-centric, merely the most touch-capable interface Microsoft had come up with so far. I've been using Windows 8, in both the Metro and desktop environments, for over a year now. With a mouse and keyboard - it works perfectly. I've only recently gotten a Surface RT, and now have a taste of it on a touch device. I'd actually say Windows 8 is still slightly better with a traditional mouse and keyboard than with a touchscreen.

 

Since until 3 weeks ago I'd never even touched a Win 8-based tablet, I honestly don't see Metro as a "tablet" UI, but rather one which works on both traditional computers and tablets.

 

As for what use Metro is in a working environment . . . First there's the Start Screen, the most usable launcher (IMO) we've gotten since Program Manager was ditched. For me, no more Start Menu alone was worth the upgrade. The rest would come down to personal preference. Unless you need a dozen windows open at once, I don't see any real reason why you can't do work in Metro, at least once some more robust programs come out.

 

I don't see anything that's solely for the tablet with Windows 8 - the Metro side works with either, and the desktop is still as mouse-centric as ever.

 

I really don't know why people insist on claiming that Metro/Modern is touch-only or touch-first. It's simply adding another type of interaction. Nothing is being ditched, at least at the moment. Mouse and keyboard aren't being phased out - even the Surface still benefits greatly from them. That's why the type cover is offered.

Office can work in ModernUI - in fact, it's not even as jarring as using Office 97 in Windows 2000 Professional was.  (I'd know, as I did so for three months - in an enterprise environment, no less - until our desktops were upgraded.  Office 2000/Windows 2000 Professional made a MUCH better tag-team than 2000/97, or even NT4WS/97.)  Have Office applications you use a lot?  Pin them to the Taskbar, Windows 7-style (either by dragging their icons to the Taskbar from File Explorer or even pin to the Taskbar from the StartScreen's AppScreen) - I have Word and Outlook pinned to my Taskbar.

 

The issue with ModernUI is NOT that it's touch-centric or touch-first, apparently - it's that it's NOT pointing-device-centric/pointing-device-first.

 

Way back during the Developer Preview, I called out the Start menu as being VERY pointing-device-centric - so much so that it even tries to stomp on the keyboard.  I've even reminded folks that - starting with Windows 9x - you got rather rudely reminded if you didn't have an available pointing device connected or working on your computer.  That is, in fact, the issue with most GUIs - it's not unique to Windows.  So far, I have found six GUIs or desktop environments that are not centered on the pointing device by default - however, none of them are exactly favorites: GNOME 3.x, Unity, Chromium, Android, iOS, and ModernUI.  GNOME 3.x is the oldest - it predates all the others; it has also gotten the most grief for it's non-centricity on pointing devices.  Evidence?  Go to any forum where SteamOS is being discussed - one of the major sore spots is the choice of GNOME 3.x as the backup DE.

 

If you are used to a pointing-device-centric UX, you're going to have issues with ModernUI (or GNOME 3.x) - simply because they aren't centered on pointing devices - not only have i never denied it, I have been stipulating it since the Developer Preview.  However, that doesn't mean that the UI (or UX) is necessarily *bad* - it's just not your cup of coffee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Like it or not the desktop as a form factor is going to disappear, with perhaps only serious professional environments (rendering, programming, etc) seeing them remain in use for sheer power. Maybe not in the immediate future, but sooner or later. The large majority of people will end up on tablets or hybrids where the traditional desktop UI shows its age - try using the desktop with a touchscreen and you'll soon be screaming murder at it.

There is more potential in Modern UI because it is a clean break. They don't have to worry about 20 years worth of backwards compatibility so can concentrate on moving forward rather than supporting libraries and UI paradigms that should have been long ago improved or replaced.

And I agree, the Modern UI will not fit programs like Blender, Photoshop, etc. As it stands it seems it is difficult just trying to make Office work in it. Many of the apps are too tablet oriented and not nearly adaptable enough. But there is no reason why it can't be adapted to suit other kinds of software. It needs some thought and direction from Microsoft to make it happen, and the encouragement for apps to copy of one biggest elements of the modern Internet - responsive design. For example, you open Photoshop on a tablet and you get a simpler UI with the most likely features needed immediately available. Then you flip the device into "laptop" mode and the whole kit unlocks for doing work. Open it on a desktop and you never see the tablet mode.

Don't get me wrong, I still use the desktop a LOT. But I can't see it going anywhere new and it is unlikely to.

 

That is the point.  Why the hell would I use a touch screen on my desktop?  It makes NO SENSE.  Try typing a 20 page paper with a touch screen keyboard.  Try playing a FPS with a touch screen.  Not only would it be difficult, your hands would block part of your view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,579

That is the point.  Why the hell would I use a touch screen on my desktop?  It makes NO SENSE.  Try typing a 20 page paper with a touch screen keyboard.  Try playing a FPS with a touch screen.  Not only would it be difficult, your hands would block part of your view.

 

Why would you try to use a touch screen on your desktop, especially for typing a paper? Modern =/= touch screen only. It's not about being forced to use either touchscreen or mouse/keyboard, but having the freedom to use whichever one suits your needs, even being able to switch between the two in moments. With Modern you can easily use either option - the traditional desktop is absolutely mouse-centric.

 

I've used Modern for over a year without a touch screen quite well. Modern is touchscreen-capable, not touchscreen-only. In fact, I'd say it's still slightly better for mouse and keyboard than a touchscreen. But I have the option of using a touchscreen monitor if I want to. Metro gives you more choice and flexibility than the classic desktop UI.

 

If I had to type something I'd either use my desktop computer or I'd plug the USB adapter for my wireless keyboard into my Surface. I wouldn't use a touchscreen for typing any more than I'd use a mouse and keyboard for reviewing the TVTropes page for the movie I'm watching in the living room. The nice thing is Modern makes it easy to use the same device for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Why would you try to use a touch screen on your desktop, especially for typing a paper? Modern =/= touch screen only. It's not about being forced to use either touchscreen or mouse/keyboard, but having the freedom to use whichever one suits your needs, even being able to switch between the two in moments. With Modern you can easily use either option - the traditional desktop is absolutely mouse-centric.

 

I've used Modern for over a year without a touch screen quite well. Modern is touchscreen-capable, not touchscreen-only. In fact, I'd say it's still slightly better for mouse and keyboard than a touchscreen.

 

If I had to type something I'd either use my desktop computer or I'd plug the USB adapter for my wireless keyboard into my Surface. I wouldn't use a touchscreen for typing any more than I'd use a mouse and keyboard for reviewing the TVTropes page for the movie I'm watching in the living room. The nice thing is Modern makes it easy to use the same device for both.

 

I agree with you.  The guy I quoted said this:

 

 

 

Like it or not the desktop as a form factor is going to disappear, with perhaps only serious professional environments (rendering, programming, etc) seeing them remain in use for sheer power. Maybe not in the immediate future, but sooner or later. The large majority of people will end up on tablets or hybrids where the traditional desktop UI shows its age - try using the desktop with a touchscreen and you'll soon be screaming murder at it.

 

So I fail to see how the desktop as a form factor is going to disappear.  That is what we are saying.  Leave the desktop alone.  There is NO NEED for a touch screen on the desktop.  Who the hell cares if the desktop UI is MATURE.  Leave it alone.  We do not need a brand new UI on the DESKTOP.

Share this post


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

That is the point. Why the hell would I use a touch screen on my desktop? It makes NO SENSE. Try typing a 20 page paper with a touch screen keyboard. Try playing a FPS with a touch screen. Not only would it be difficult, your hands would block part of your view.

In no way shape or form did he say you'd be using a touch screen only setup.

But take a look around the market at the majority of devices being sold - they're not traditional desktops anymore. They're laptops, and other mobile devices. Desktops have lost their appeal to the majority of users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,579

I agree with you.  The guy I quoted said this:

 

 

So I fail to see how the desktop as a form factor is going to disappear.  That is what we are saying.  Leave the desktop alone.  There is NO NEED for a touch screen on the desktop.  Who the hell cares if the desktop UI is MATURE.  Leave it alone.  We do not need a brand new UI on the DESKTOP.

 

There may be no need for a touchscreen on the desktop at the moment, but that could change in the future. Why not provide the option? And again, Modern just gives you the option of a touchscreen, it doesn't make it a requirement.

 

Desktop UI is not the only way to use a desktop computer. Modern works fine on the desktop form factor, while the desktop UI is less well suited to a tablet form factor. I have a desktop/tower computer, but I only run the desktop UI on it when I need a program that runs on it.Honestly, if the application support were there for Modern, my "desktop" computer would hardly ever see the desktop UI.

 

And the desktop UI, apart from the elements to link it to Modern, hasn't changed any more from 7 to 8 than any other version change.

 

I'd argue that we do need a new UI on the desktop, if only to expand the options available. The 20 year old desktop UI isn't flexible enough on its own for today's environment, so Modern was added to provide more options.The classic desktop is one of those options, but we're no longer limited to it.

 

At the very least, the Start Menu needed to be retired. To be honest, I could give up the rest of Modern as long as something akin to the Start Screen were ported to the desktop.

 

The desktop UI is still present for the things it's better suited for (if only due to greater application support in some cases) but we're not limited to just those. The greatest strength of Windows 8 is the fact that it can present the Modern UI and apps as well as the legacy desktop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

In no way shape or form did he say you'd be using a touch screen only setup.

But take a look around the market at the majority of devices being sold - they're not traditional desktops anymore. They're laptops, and other mobile devices. Desktops have lost their appeal to the majority of users.

 

Maybe because we have reached a plateau in CPU performance?  There is NO reason somebody running a Core 2 Duo needs to run out and get an i3 at least.  Hell even Pentium D or even Pentium 4 will work for most people.

 

That used to be the case when we were at Pentium 1, 2, 3, and 4.   Upgrading a few GHz.  but now, GHz have plateaued, and not everybody needs hexa cores.

 

Just because desktop sales have slowed down, does not mean it is the end of the desktop.

 

 

There may be no need for a touchscreen on the desktop at the moment, but that could change in the future. Why not provide the option? And again, Modern just gives you the option of a touchscreen, it doesn't make it a requirement.

 

Desktop UI is not the only way to use a desktop computer. Modern works fine on the desktop form factor, while the desktop UI is less well suited to a tablet form factor. I have a desktop/tower computer, but I only run the desktop UI on it when I need a program that runs on it.Honestly, if the application support were there for Modern, my "desktop" computer would hardly ever see the desktop UI.

 

And the desktop UI, apart from the elements to link it to Modern, hasn't changed any more from 7 to 8 than any other version change.

 

I'd argue that we do need a new UI on the desktop, if only to expand the options available. The 20 year old desktop UI isn't flexible enough on its own for today's environment, so Modern was added to provide more options.The classic desktop is one of those options, but we're no longer limited to it.

 

At the very least, the Start Menu needed to be retired. To be honest, I could give up the rest of Modern as long as something akin to the Start Screen were ported to the desktop.

 

The desktop UI is still present for the things it's better suited for (if only due to greater application support in some cases) but we're not limited to just those. The greatest strength of Windows 8 is the fact that it can present the Modern UI and apps as well as the legacy desktop.

 

 

That will never happen.  If MS still cares about their business audience, they will keep the desktop UI for many many many years.  There is NO reason for businesses to be forced to teach employees the new interface.

 

And explain how the desktop UI is not flexible enough?  I am STRICTLY talking about DESKTOPS here.  Leave tablets and hybrids out of this conversation.  With several high resolution monitors, I can have dozens and dozens of stuff open and visible at once.  That is not flexible?  I can FREELY move ANY window around to where I want it.  That is not flexible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,579

Maybe because we have reached a plateau in CPU performance?  There is NO reason somebody running a Core 2 Duo needs to run out and get an i3 at least.  Hell even Pentium D or even Pentium 4 will work for most people.

 

That used to be the case when we were at Pentium 1, 2, 3, and 4.   Upgrading a few GHz.  but now, GHz have plateaued, and not everybody needs hexa cores.

 

Just because desktop sales have slowed down, does not mean it is the end of the desktop.

 

 
 

 

That will never happen.  If MS still cares about their business audience, they will keep the desktop UI for many many many years.  There is NO reason for businesses to be forced to teach employees the new interface.

 

And explain how the desktop UI is not flexible enough?  I am STRICTLY talking about DESKTOPS here.  Leave tablets and hybrids out of this conversation.  With several high resolution monitors, I can have dozens and dozens of stuff open and visible at once.  That is not flexible?  I can FREELY move ANY window around to where I want it.  That is not flexible?

 

What will never happen? The possibility of a legitimate business use for touchscreens? Maybe, maybe not. In the late 80s the same thing was probably said about the mouse. And then Windows 3.0 happened. So who knows what might be in the future. In the meantime, is there any harm in the capability existing in Windows, especially since it's optional? Especially since it is not a requirement for the new interface? Like I keep saying Modern does not require a touchscreen to be effective. It bothers me when people argue as if Metro and touchscreen are synonymous - they're not.

 

I myself have no need for a touchscreen on my tower system, but I do like Modern, and its flexibility in allowing me to run both "Metro" and desktop apps. Note I'm not referring to my hardware as a "desktop" anymore - I'm finding it confuses the issue to refer to "full-size" systems and the traditional interface both as "desktop". A full-size computer is a necessity for me. The traditional desktop UI is less so - I only use it when I need a program written for it.

 

I never said the desktop was completely inflexible, just that it wasn't flexible enough for today. The desktop is limited to only the way you worked before. Metro contains the desktop, so the desktop's capabilities are now part of it. So you get all the stuff you had before, and additional options, if you choose to use them. Since you don't have to use Modern, there's no reason not to include it on full size computers.

 

And there really isn't that much to teach on the new interface - my 75 year old mother picked up the Start Screen and Modern a lot faster than she did the differences between XP and 7. For basic users, the changes aren't quite as drastic as for the power user or admin.

 

The Start Screen replaces the Menu. The desktop tile opens the classic design the users are familiar with. Have the essential apps pinned front and center on the Start Screen, and on the desktop, so the users have a choice of how to get to their stuff. I've prepped Win 8 systems for people and trained them on the changes. It's nowhere near as difficult as some people make it seem. Yes, some training was needed, but it's not like I'm able to drop a 7 system on a former XP user without doing some training either. Most business users would likely only see the Screen and the sidebars, at least until some proper business apps are written for Modern, and with a small utility, even those can be hidden.

 

Honestly, the changes between versions of some applications I've had to deal with required more training.

 

Although given the choice, I'd take the Screen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

What will never happen? The possibility of a legitimate business use for touchscreens? Maybe, maybe not. In the late 80s the same thing was probably said about the mouse. And then Windows 3.0 happened. So who knows what might be in the future. In the meantime, is there any harm in the capability existing in Windows, especially since it's optional? Especially since it is not a requirement for the new interface? Like I keep saying Modern does not require a touchscreen to be effective. It bothers me when people argue as if Metro and touchscreen are synonymous - they're not.

 

I myself have no need for a touchscreen on my tower system, but I do like Modern, and its flexibility in allowing me to run both "Metro" and desktop apps. Note I'm not referring to my hardware as a "desktop" anymore - I'm finding it confuses the issue to refer to "full-size" systems and the traditional interface both as "desktop". A full-size computer is a necessity for me. The traditional desktop UI is less so - I only use it when I need a program written for it.

 

I never said the desktop was completely inflexible, just that it wasn't flexible enough for today. The desktop is limited to only the way you worked before. Metro contains the desktop, so the desktop's capabilities are now part of it. So you get all the stuff you had before, and additional options, if you choose to use them. Since you don't have to use Modern, there's no reason not to include it on full size computers.

 

And there really isn't that much to teach on the new interface - my 75 year old mother picked up the Start Screen and Modern a lot faster than she did the differences between XP and 7. For basic users, the changes aren't quite as drastic as for the power user or admin.

 

The Start Screen replaces the Menu. The desktop tile opens the classic design the users are familiar with. Have the essential apps pinned front and center on the Start Screen, and on the desktop, so the users have a choice of how to get to their stuff. I've prepped Win 8 systems for people and trained them on the changes. It's nowhere near as difficult as some people make it seem. Yes, some training was needed, but it's not like I'm able to drop a 7 system on a former XP user without doing some training either. Most business users would likely only see the Screen and the sidebars, at least until some proper business apps are written for Modern, and with a small utility, even those can be hidden.

 

Although given the choice, I'd take the Screen.

 

Actually I know many businesses that upgraded from XP to 7 with no training.  Nothing has changed there.  To open up Word you go to Start - All Programs - Microsoft Office - Word 2010.

 

It is much more difficult in Windows 8 than that.  Everybody I talked to so far did not know AT ALL you can search just by typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,579

Actually I know many businesses that upgraded from XP to 7 with no training.  Nothing has changed there.  To open up Word you go to Start - All Programs - Microsoft Office - Word 2010.

 

It is much more difficult in Windows 8 than that.  Everybody I talked to so far did not know AT ALL you can search just by typing.

 

And when I upgraded users to 7 at my last 2 jobs, some training was required, unless they used 7 at home (which is a distinct possibility these days.) It wasn't a lot of training, but some was needed.

 

And is "Start - click the Microsoft Office Word tile" really any more difficult than "Start - All Programs - Microsoft Office - Word 2010"? I'm not talking about power users who need to remember where that one setting we need is located, but the people we support. Get the users past any initial confusion over the change in the look, and in my experience they have no trouble at all.

 

It just seems kind of ridiculous to expect that no training should be necessary for the OS, when you often have to train users on the new version of a program. The practice management program at the veterinary clinic I used to work at required constant training, as the place had a revolving door for employees, and it was the most user-hostile piece of c**p I'd ever seen.

 

That was an extreme case, but if you train users on the other programs they use, why would you not teach them about the most basic one?

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.