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


Recommended Posts

RevitXman

If this hasn't been mentioned....Two questions during pre-setup. Is this a Tablet/touch enabled PC or a desktop PC. Tablet/touch will enable the full Metro UI, desktop will give you the classic desktop interface aka Windows 7

Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell

If this hasn't been mentioned....Two questions during pre-setup. Is this a Tablet/touch enabled PC or a desktop PC. Tablet/touch will enable the full Metro UI, desktop will give you the classic desktop interface aka Windows 7

 

Like I've been saying - Metro does not equal touch. I love it on my tower pc, and would hate to be limited to just the desktop UI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm

There is training to be proficient in using a new operating system. Then there is specific task-oriented training, in which a user is familiarized enough to launch one or a small series of programs to complete a task. The XP to 7 transition didn't require any changes to the latter type, since the majority of tasks were workflow-identical. I can see that an XP to 8 or 7 to 8 transition might cause problems with navigating the OS, but if set up appropriately, 8 can be pretty straight-forward. It's not as if an employee needs extraneous programs visible in the taskbar or Start screen, and if faced with a locked-down Start screen with six familiar icons, I'd expect most people to figure it out on their own.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Osiris

Microsoft was a little ahead of the times and maybe the replacement features of windows 8 should have been refined a bit more first but I hope we don't see a return of the stat menu as its almost now come to symbolise the previous era of desktop computing and its time to move forward.

 

I think Microsoft has done well to slowly start the process of a unified interface experience and a UI that lends itself to a range of NUI technologies.  That's not to say the desktop nor the mouse and keyboard is going anywhere but rather that windows is evolving to cater and be optimised for these new interface and input types.   

 

The start menu isn't the pinnacle of desktop organisation or UI control and it certainly doesn't represent the end of history for the desktop, I think the best things are still ahead of us.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm

Regarding two changes between 7 and 8 (I'm curious from a design aspect):

Why should the Start menu be a list of icons/links and a search bar, that takes up a somewhat variable percentage of screen space, depending on DPI and resolution settings? Why is it not simply a search bar, or bigger/smaller than it currently is?

Why haven't people made icons more informative? The OS X dock has a calendar icon that changes with the date. Its Mail icon indicates the number of unread messages. Windows and OS X have the Trash/Recycle Bin icons that change to indicate whether there is content inside. Is this information a reasonable improvement over static icons, and how can it be applied effectively?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash

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?

 

What kind of Windows 7 training do people need?  If all they do is live in MS Office, then the way the launched programs between XP and 7 has not changed at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fourjays

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.

You've missed the point. The desktop UI excels at mouse and keyboard actions. I'm not arguing otherwise. But people are rapidly shifting towards touchscreen devices, due to a variety of reasons from convenience to ease of use. And the desktop is awful for touchscreen use.

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.

I think you are equating the desktop form factor with the mouse and keyboard. There is no question that the mouse and keyboard will survive for some time yet, but as complimentary inputs alongside touch on hybrid devices. For example, you use your "tablet" in the living room while watching a TV show. You then need to type a letter, and rather than using another device you simply plug the tablet into some sort of docking adaptor that allows you to type a 20 page letter on a keyboard with an optional mouse and monitor. When you're finished, you just undock it and go back to swiping through Twitter or whatever.

It's controversial, but we do need a new UI instead of the desktop. Ignoring touchscreens, the desktop has hit its limits. There is nothing smart or clever about it, it is just a portal. And a bad one at that. More importantly though, there is little interlinking or connection between programs. They all exist in their own little bubble, connected only by the clipboard and developed with OS features that should be long extinct. I'd rather see computers get smarter, more helpful and more accessible than sticking with a confusing UI paradigm where I use nested menus and then waste 99% of the space on a background picture or fill it to the brim with clutter.

I'm not arguing that Windows 8 is the answer to these problems yet either. It is a step in the right direction though. With the right design choices it has the potential to take computing somewhere new and far more useful. But it does need to begin by recognising form factors as individuals and adapt the UI accordingly, rather than treating all form factors as one (as it does now). Equally, it shouldn't treat them entirely as individuals either.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

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.

On Windows 8, All I have to do is Start - Word 2010. No "All Programs" needed.

 

Why are you still using All Programs to begin with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

If this hasn't been mentioned....Two questions during pre-setup. Is this a Tablet/touch enabled PC or a desktop PC. Tablet/touch will enable the full Metro UI, desktop will give you the classic desktop interface aka Windows 7

This is more problematic that you think it is. What happens to all in ones? Tablets (like the Surface)? Laptops? These all counts as "PCs". How is setup supposed to know how to differentiate all these hardware setups, when they all use Touch + Kb/M?

 

There is no "black and white" to PCs anymore, and the lines are only going to continue to blur. With this, there is only one choice, and that is to go with a unified SKU - Unify these devices with a common UI that works with wide range of input methods. That way the user can use what's best for them at a given time. Obviously, the desktop UI can't expand to meet the needs of tablet PC/AiO needs, so Metro is the only logical choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
firey

There is no "black and white" to PCs anymore, and the lines are only going to continue to blur. With this, there is only one choice, and that is to go with a unified SKU - Unify these devices with a common UI that works with wide range of input methods. That way the user can use what's best for them at a given time. Obviously, the desktop UI can't expand to meet the needs of tablet PC/AiO needs, so Metro is the only logical choice.

 

And metro can't scale to that of a standard desktop.  They need to keep the desktop, task bar et all on a Windows Workstation, and even on a standard desktop/laptop computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

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.

The desktop formfactor is in trouble because, for most users, it's overkill, and has BEEN overkill for nearly a decade, if not longer - the power and capabilities it has had traditionally over portables (of all sorts - including netbooks and tablets, and even smartphones at the very lowest of ends) is getting smaller and smaller - how long will it be before that advantage (again for most users - not necessarily all users) goes away altogether - making the desktop formfactor largely irrelevant?

 

Looking just at the Windows ecosystem, only gaming uses a significant portion of the hardware capabilities of desktops today - if anything, productivity software uses less of the capabilities of the average desktop than it did at the beginning of the century, thirteen years and six versions of Windows/NT ago.  For all the bluster about Photoshop or 3DS MAX (or even AutoCAD), they are NOT mainstream productivity applications - they are niche applications for niche usages.  For the best-selling productivity suite, year after year - yes, I'm referring to Microsoft Office - other than x64, how much has it REALLY changed merely since Office 2003?  Other than Outlook, the majority of the changes to the Office core applications are about mobile usage - while desktop users CAN use the new features, they by and large aren't the drivers OF those features.  Also, you CAN run Photoshop, 3DS Max, or AutoCAD on a Surface Pro/Surface 2 Pro today - did a similar portable even exist when Windows 7 shipped?  I'm behind the hardware curve by several years yet; still the combination of Windows 8.1 and my application and gaming mix is actually the closest I've come to using ALL my (dead) hardware's capabilities under any version of Windows - upgrading to simply the middle of modern hardware (i5-4670K, midrange nVidia desktop graphics, such as GTX660, SSD - all of which are planned upgrades over the next six to nine months) may enable me to do more in terms of gaming - however, in terms of anything else (let alone everything else), it's nuking a fly.  Considering that is my situation today - and I'm an admitted outlier - how many desktop computer users - regardless of what version of Windows they are using - are at the point that they are saying "Why the heck should I upgrade, if I'm not using all my hardware's capabilities now?"  That is the desktop formfactor situation in a nutshell - underutilized for the most part, and the situation is - except for gaming - getting not just worse, but MUCH worse.  It's not the fault of Windows 8 (or 8.1), or even the fault of Windows as an ecosystem - the gap between what computer hardware is capable of and what it's actually used for by most has simply been in favor of the hardware for so long a stretch that it will take major doing for software - any software, including Windows - to catch it.  Portable computers, on the other hand, ARE gaining in terms of both capability and power - slates and tablets, regardless of what operating system is on them, are proof of that.  The real question that is waiting in the wings is WHEN will they catch up to what most desktop-computer users want in terms of capability - not if?  (It's going to happen - that is certain.)

 

The late Satchel Paige said "Don't look back - someone might be gaining on you." (Not only was it the most known of his quotables, it was the title of his autobiography.)  Portable computers ARE catching up to desktops - ignoring that fact is silly AND stupid, and especially if you're Microsoft.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

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?

Plateau in CPU performance my hind end - the plateau is in what is used by desktop applications - even productivity applications.

I'm running Windows 8.1 on an Intel quad-core CPU - not just any quad-core, but the original Intel quad-core - Q6600 AKA Kentsfield AKA "Phenom's Nightmare".  Intel alone has come out with four generations of quad-cores since the tag-team of Kentsfield and Yorkfield launched into the tailchase of LGA775 - yet other than niche software, what is out there that will tax even Kentsfield, let alone Yorkfield, Nehalem, or even Sandy/Ivy Bridge, let alone Haswell?  Other than nicheware, as old as it is, even Q6600 is horrible overkill for most productivity use.

 

Yes - desktops have a lot of power compared to portable computers - I'm not disputing that.  The dispute comes in to actual use of power available - NOT power available.  I'm so far behind the power curve that any i5 portable - and quite a few i3-based portables (or AMD Fusion APU-based portables) can/will/do eat my desktop's lunch - however, how many users of even those selfsame portables use all of what they can bring to bear?  And since it is certain we ALL know of portable-computer users - again, regardless of what OS they may be using - that are not taking advantage of all their portable can do, how much WORSE is it for desktop users? Let's face reality - most desktop users outfit their desktops for the niche use that demands all that power - how much of it is called upon the rest of the time?  Those niche usage scenarios may be ALL that is keeping the desktop formfactor alive right now; however, the rest of the time, all that capability and power is largely underutilized, if not almost UN-utilized.  (That IS a rather ugly problem - and it's not necessarily the fault of Microsoft, or even developers.  The problem is larger - far larger - than a single operating system - it's present in all of them.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

Where has DirectX 11.1 and 11.2 on Windows 7 gone?

11.1 is available on Windows 7 simply by updating the runtimes - only 11.2 is not.  (In fact, 11.2 is so new fewer than ten games that either have already shipped or even WILL ship between now and the end of 2014 will utilize it.  If you are that much of a gamer that a newer version of DirectX is motivation enough to upgrade, why was it NOT enough to upgrade even to Windows 8.1?  I upgraded - first to Windows 8, then to 8.1 - for performance increases that had diddly to even do with DirectX as an API.)  Further, even of the games that have stated that they will USE this version of DirectX, how many will require it?  So far, I have heard of exactly zero - even the two games that HAVE shipped for Windows that will use the new runtimes support 11.1, as will the delayed Watch_Dogs - none of the three are 11.2-only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

And metro can't scale to that of a standard desktop. They need to keep the desktop, task bar et all on a Windows Workstation, and even on a standard desktop/laptop computer.

What do you mean it can't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
firey

What do you mean it can't?

 

I mean.  You can't be 100% productive on a workplace computer (at least with what I do) with 2 windows.   A desktop with multi-window, multi-size windows, task bar at bottom for quick switching (no need for alt+tab, etc), is pretty much needed.

Unless Metro becomes windowed, and retains 100% desktop like capability.. in which case it just becomes what we already have.. it can't and won't succeed in the work place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

I mean.  You can't be 100% productive on a workplace computer (at least with what I do) with 2 windows.   A desktop with multi-window, multi-size windows, task bar at bottom for quick switching (no need for alt+tab, etc), is pretty much needed.

Unless Metro becomes windowed, and retains 100% desktop like capability.. in which case it just becomes what we already have.. it can't and won't succeed in the work place.

You're thinking of new things, while holding on to old habits - it doesn't work that way. That's like asking to use a GUI while holding onto CLI habits. It won't work. Metro allows for a productive environment, you'll just need to adapt to new ways of doing things - as with any change done to any OS period. If you sit there, and tell yourself your habits haven't changed over the years, you'd be kidding yourself. I know mine has changed immensely, even from the XP days. If you are up to date with using Windows 7, then seriously, Windows 8.1 requires little training. Search still works the same, the Start Screen still works the same, and your workflow will still be relatively unchanged. Snapping a Metro app is no different than snapping a desktop app.

 

There is a task switcher to the side. Metro allows for more than two windows (this *hasn't* been an issue for sometime now- null argument). Metro allows for multiple sized windows (again not an issue). Sounds like you haven't given Windows 8.1 a try.

Link to post
Share on other sites
firey

Okay, maybe I am missing how to make metro apps not full screen, and how to have more than 2 on a screen at once?  The only way I can see to do that.. is not use metro and use the desktop.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash

Plateau in CPU performance my hind end - the plateau is in what is used by desktop applications - even productivity applications.

I'm running Windows 8.1 on an Intel quad-core CPU - not just any quad-core, but the original Intel quad-core - Q6600 AKA Kentsfield AKA "Phenom's Nightmare".  Intel alone has come out with four generations of quad-cores since the tag-team of Kentsfield and Yorkfield launched into the tailchase of LGA775 - yet other than niche software, what is out there that will tax even Kentsfield, let alone Yorkfield, Nehalem, or even Sandy/Ivy Bridge, let alone Haswell?  Other than nicheware, as old as it is, even Q6600 is horrible overkill for most productivity use.

 

Yes - desktops have a lot of power compared to portable computers - I'm not disputing that.  The dispute comes in to actual use of power available - NOT power available.  I'm so far behind the power curve that any i5 portable - and quite a few i3-based portables (or AMD Fusion APU-based portables) can/will/do eat my desktop's lunch - however, how many users of even those selfsame portables use all of what they can bring to bear?  And since it is certain we ALL know of portable-computer users - again, regardless of what OS they may be using - that are not taking advantage of all their portable can do, how much WORSE is it for desktop users? Let's face reality - most desktop users outfit their desktops for the niche use that demands all that power - how much of it is called upon the rest of the time?  Those niche usage scenarios may be ALL that is keeping the desktop formfactor alive right now; however, the rest of the time, all that capability and power is largely underutilized, if not almost UN-utilized.  (That IS a rather ugly problem - and it's not necessarily the fault of Microsoft, or even developers.  The problem is larger - far larger - than a single operating system - it's present in all of them.)

 

That is not true.  After Effects and programs like that eat up as many cores and threads you can throw at it.  I can see a MAJOR improvement going from an i5 to an i7 using After Effects.  Not to mention a 6-core Xeon maxes out on all cores when AE is encoding large projects.

 

Why does somebody that only needs to check email need more than a Core 2 Duo?  SINGLE THREADED performance has plateaued.  

 

 

Okay, maybe I am missing how to make metro apps not full screen, and how to have more than 2 on a screen at once?  The only way I can see to do that.. is not use metro and use the desktop.

 
I agree.  I need to have MANY things open.  I got a 27" monitor for a reason, not so I can have the Store app take up the entire screen.  
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

Okay, maybe I am missing how to make metro apps not full screen, and how to have more than 2 on a screen at once?  The only way I can see to do that.. is not use metro and use the desktop.

Snap them to the side by dragging them. Just like you do on the desktop. It's seriously not that hard, dude.

 

post-420821-0-24607300-1387909561.png

 

This is just one of my monitors. I have two more apps open on the other, I could have more open, but I don't need anything else open at this moment. 

 

5 apps all together. Now how is this any different than working with open windows on the desktop? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
firey

Snap them to the side by dragging them. Just like you do on the desktop. It's seriously not that hard, dude.

 

attachicon.gifScreenshot (1380).png

 

This is just one of my monitors. I have two more apps open on the other, I could have more open, but I don't need anything else open at this moment. 

 

5 apps all together. Now how is this any different than working with open windows on the desktop? 

I have 8.1 installed for testing.

This is what I did:

1) Opened Store App pinned it to the side

2) Opened start screen (which hid the pinned app.. makes no sense)

3) Clicked on Sky Drive it opened full screen, but there was an option to the left to split screen it 

4) opened start again once again it took over, I opened the weather app.  It gave me the option to either put it on the left or on the right (replacing the pinned app).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

I have 8.1 installed for testing.

This is what I did:

1) Opened Store App pinned it to the side

2) Opened start screen (which hid the pinned app.. makes no sense)

3) Clicked on Sky Drive it opened full screen, but there was an option to the left to split screen it 

4) opened start again once again it took over, I opened the weather app.  It gave me the option to either put it on the left or on the right (replacing the pinned app).

Drag it with your mouse to the opposite edge of the screen - just like you would in Windows 7. Trust me, it'll snap.  Start Screen is hiding apps, just like the Start Menu appears over everything else on the desktop - that's what they were designed to do. If you want to go back to where you were, just hit the start button again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
firey

Drag it with your mouse to the opposite edge of the screen - just like you would in Windows 7. Trust me, it'll snap.  Start Screen is hiding apps, just like the Start Menu appears over everything else on the desktop - that's what they were designed to do. If you want to go back to where you were, just hit the start button again.

Got it to work.. though it would be nice to be able to flip them in a way.  Like not have it necessarily vertical but horizontal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

 

That is not true.  After Effects and programs like that eat up as many cores and threads you can throw at it.  I can see a MAJOR improvement going from an i5 to an i7 using After Effects.  Not to mention a 6-core Xeon maxes out on all cores when AE is encoding large projects.

 

Why does somebody that only needs to check email need more than a Core 2 Duo?  SINGLE THREADED performance has plateaued.  

 

 
 
I agree.  I need to have MANY things open.  I got a 27" monitor for a reason, not so I can have the Store app take up the entire screen.  

 

AfterEffects is like Photoshop itself - a niche application for a niche use.  And I specified everyday-usage applications (which is why I pointed specifically to Office and the applications thereof - in fact, because Word can spin off additional threads for file/document conversion, it uses LESS memory in x64 than x32 to open a *foreign* file format, such as ODF or even PDF, than the x32 counterpart, and that's Word vs. Word - however, even that feature, which is new with Word 2013, is used by how many folks?) - some would call even that outlier usage, let alone AfterEffects and Photoshop, which are used by fewer people than Word.

 

It's the things I do even with everyday productivity applications that are outside the pale that are why I refer to MYSELF as an outlier.  However, how many users of desktop PCs see themselves that way - even though they may actually be further out on the fringe than I am?  (Subjective, subjective, subjective.)

 

Also, an overlarge single display, let alone multiple displays, tends to be a rather obvious sign of "outlier" use - most desktop users (the form-factor) don't have multiple displays, even though the cost of such is dropping rapidly.

 

If anything, Neowinians are outliers, and thus WAY outside the "average" Windows user - that is regardless of what version of Windows is in use by an individual Neowinian.

 

I support "average" Windows users; however, I absolutely refuse to assume that they use Windows like I do - I remember what happens when you assume anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash

AfterEffects is like Photoshop itself - a niche application for a niche use.  And I specified everyday-usage applications (which is why I pointed specifically to Office and the applications thereof - in fact, because Word can spin off additional threads for file/document conversion, it uses LESS memory in x64 than x32 to open a *foreign* file format, such as ODF or even PDF, than the x32 counterpart, and that's Word vs. Word - however, even that feature, which is new with Word 2013, is used by how many folks?) - some would call even that outlier usage, let alone AfterEffects and Photoshop, which are used by fewer people than Word.

 

It's the things I do even with everyday productivity applications that are outside the pale that are why I refer to MYSELF as an outlier.  However, how many users of desktop PCs see themselves that way - even though they may actually be further out on the fringe than I am?  (Subjective, subjective, subjective.)

 

Also, an overlarge single display, let alone multiple displays, tends to be a rather obvious sign of "outlier" use - most desktop users (the form-factor) don't have multiple displays, even though the cost of such is dropping rapidly.

 

If anything, Neowinians are outliers, and thus WAY outside the "average" Windows user - that is regardless of what version of Windows is in use by an individual Neowinian.

 

I support "average" Windows users; however, I absolutely refuse to assume that they use Windows like I do - I remember what happens when you assume anything.

 

Isn't that what I have been saying?  Single threaded performance has plateaued.  Why does somebody that only looks at Facebook and emails need more than even a 3Ghz Pentium 4?

 

What a shocker that desktop sales have slowed down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

Isn't that what I have been saying?  Single threaded performance has plateaued.  Why does somebody that only looks at Facebook and emails need more than even a 3Ghz Pentium 4?

 

What a shocker that desktop sales have slowed down.

So then you see the problem... For the work people do, mobile devices - whether they're laptops or tablets/smartphones - are increasingly fulfilling user's needs, both at home, and in the workplace. Now do you see why Microsoft wants to open up Windows to more devices? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.