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


Recommended Posts

Athernar

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.

 

Incorrect, feature level 11_1 is not available on Windows 7 - only certain functionality not tied into that feature level.

 

You talk about it being an incentive to update, but you were using "Windows 7 still exists and works fine!" as an excuse to quash criticism of 8. You cannot have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

Incorrect, feature level 11_1 is not available on Windows 7 - only certain functionality not tied into that feature level.

 

You talk about it being an incentive to update, but you were using "Windows 7 still exists and works fine!" as an excuse to quash criticism of 8. You cannot have it both ways.

The criticism of 8 (and 8.1) are due to two reasons - 8/8.1 are radically different than 7 (stipulated and agreed), and "I don't have a reason to move." (understandable - but seldom heard).

I have not said (in fact, I have never said) that 8 is the same as 7 in terms of UI/UX - however, the difference outside of the UI/UX is negligible outside of that.  The hardware curve went nowhere (8 and 7 have the same requirements in terms of hardware); therefore, you don't need to buy new hardware (unless your hardware is older than Vista).  However, those two reasons I mentioned (differences in UI/UX in particular) can be dealt with; it takes some effort, but no more than it took to go from XP to Vista or even Vista to 7 - despite the massive UI/UX change.  The "I don't want to move" reason is one I've been hearing a lot - and it's an excuse, and it's gotten rather old and tired - it ALWAYS comes up whenever a new version of Windows launches - it even came out when Windows 7 launched.  The majority of the criticism of ModernUI isn't even FUD - it's plain and simply fear, based on a false assumption.

 

Here's a reality-check for you - Windows 8 (and 8.1) actually has greater compatibility with desktop (as in Win32/Win64) applications and games than Windows 7 does - how does a supposedly touch-first (let alone touch-focussed) UI/UX pull that out of the hat?  That much-improved backward compatibility (compared to older versions of Windows) has had a surprising side-effect - it's actually made it harder, not easier, for ModernUI apps to get traction outside of RT.  Basically, Windows 8.x - ModernUI and all - is a better OS for desktop software than 7, even, if not especially, on the same hardware.  (What desktop software that did get bounced was due to those same features now being part of the OS core - virtual-drive software in particular, along with disk-optimization utilities are now superfluous.)  The ModernUI app ecosystem is actually icing when it comes to 8.x - not cake; the cake is that improved stability that is included with the improved compatibility.  THAT is why I don't miss the Start menu, and I have exactly zero interest in any of the utilities that have released to fix that lack.)

 

The second reality-check has to do with the Start menu itself: the Start menu (and the clones thereof in all other operating systems) is very pointing-device-centric, to the point that it takes away from the keyboard.  If anything, Vista and 7 made the pointing-device-centricity even worse.  I'm glad to see the Start menu gone in 8.x for that reason alone. (QuickLaunch and Taskbar-pinning are still present and accounted for - however, neither really takes away from using the keyboard in 8.x.)  While LaunchPad in OS X can do the same thing, it's heavily resisted there for the same reason that ModernUI is in Windows - it's not pointing-device-centric.  Notice that Apple never took the logical "next step" and shipped so much as a single Mac or MacBook with a touch-screen - care to guess why that is?)

 

The recalcitrance on moving forward is itself the biggest threat to Windows as an ecosystem - not Microsoft, and not even ModernUI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

Incorrect, feature level 11_1 is not available on Windows 7 - only certain functionality not tied into that feature level.

 

You talk about it being an incentive to update, but you were using "Windows 7 still exists and works fine!" as an excuse to quash criticism of 8. You cannot have it both ways.

The "Windows 7 still works fine" is what the critics are saying - not me; notice that I put it in quotes.  However, from personal experience, Windows 8.x is better than Windows 7 merely on the desktop software side of things - ModernUI (as an application subsystem) is icing for me, basically (an option , and a no-cost option).  Increased backward compatibility and increased stability (desktop software) were plenty of reason for me to upgrade - and I'm running 8.1 on Vista/7-era desktop hardware.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

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.

Precisely - however, Windows 8 itself has nothing to do with it - remember, if it can run Windows 7, it can run Windows 8 (or even 8.1). (What it means is that the user can buy an OS upgrade instead of a completely new desktop PC.)

One reason that takeup of Windows 8 is NOT at the same pace as that of Windows 7 (aside from where the world is economically) is the rather large amount of fear (not FUD) concerning ModernUI as a UI/UX.  One thing that has been heard constantly from the critics is that ModernUI (as a UI) is touch-first (or touch-centric) - that is flatly false.  ModernUI (as a UI/UX) is no more touch-centered than Android or iOS (or even OS X in LaunchPad mode); one thing that IS true (of all four desktop environments) is that none are pointing-device-centric.  However, despite the loss of being centered on the pointing device, how does it affect desktop software?  Quite honestly, where it gets down to installing or using it, it matters not at all  Desktop software still installs and runs the same way - basically, the software could care less that the Start menu is gone.  Even the pointing devices themselves could care less - other than specific Start-isms, I get just as much use from my mouse as I did in 7; however, I use the mouse itself less because I can use the keyboard more in 8.x than 7.  (That was why I had that rant about being "married to your pointing device" in the Soapbox.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX

Precisely - however, Windows 8 itself has nothing to do with it - remember, if it can run Windows 7, it can run Windows 8 (or even 8.1). (What it means is that the user can buy an OS upgrade instead of a completely new desktop PC.)

One reason that takeup of Windows 8 is NOT at the same pace as that of Windows 7 (aside from where the world is economically) is the rather large amount of fear (not FUD) concerning ModernUI as a UI/UX.  One thing that has been heard constantly from the critics is that ModernUI (as a UI) is touch-first (or touch-centric) - that is flatly false.  ModernUI (as a UI/UX) is no more touch-centered than Android or iOS (or even OS X in LaunchPad mode); one thing that IS true (of all four desktop environments) is that none are pointing-device-centric.  However, despite the loss of being centered on the pointing device, how does it affect desktop software?  Quite honestly, where it gets down to installing or using it, it matters not at all  Desktop software still installs and runs the same way - basically, the software could care less that the Start menu is gone.  Even the pointing devices themselves could care less - other than specific Start-isms, I get just as much use from my mouse as I did in 7; however, I use the mouse itself less because I can use the keyboard more in 8.x than 7.  (That was why I had that rant about being "married to your pointing device" in the Soapbox.)

 

I just don't agree with that. At the end of the day it's about apps. There are no killer apps for Windows 8. There are no killer apps period besides games, and they don't require Windows 8. The productivity and content creation markets are basically dominated by Microsoft and Adobe and there's nothing new there. In fact, even Adobe is moving to the cloud to generate revenue because there's not a whole lot more they can do. "unless" they were to move to Modern UI touch interface which just doesn't work too well for their products or the serious workflow.

 

Tablet apps on a desktop don't count, and don't interest many. If a good one is there, a desktop user will use it, but it's not something necessary or maybe not even something they'll pay for. Desktop users have much higher standards than the tablet/phone applet based crowd.

 

If new games such as Woflenstein: New Order, the new Frostbite 3 driven Battlefront, or even the HD 2.5d reimaging of Abe's Odyssey: New & Tasty, "required" Windows 8, I think that would spur sales. Apps that ran better or required the newest version of Windows/DX have always helped drive sales/upgrades. That doesn't exist right now. Win32 is still where the AAA games and apps (which there just aren't any period) are. And given the instability and lack of traction of the Modern UI, that doesn't appear likely to change any time soon, not on the desktop. Why does the desktop need Modern UI? It doesn't. It doesn't do more, doesn't do anything particularly better, and has no exclusive killer apps. It's just there, for Microsoft's mobile initiatives which aren't setting the world on fire.

 

The Modern UI should be ushering in new, innovative, creative applications, only it isn't. What's worse? Microsoft's own core apps are buggy shells of their Win32 counterparts. So why would 3rd party devs with fewer resources dive in? They won't, they haven't, and it appears they have no plans to. Not on the desktop.

 

Lastly, given how crappy MS' Modern Apps are, all buggy and even the most refined (Mail 8.1) missing functionality and some usability\ease\convenience of using (inherent in Modern UI on the desktop), one or more of the following must be true:

 

  • WinRT simply cannot do all the things Win32 can
  • WinRT is harder to develop for than anyone, even MS themselves anticipated
  • WinRT is shameful buggy mess that is really still at early beta stage (witness random apps still randomly spontaneously quitting, even Microsoft's. Suspended IE causing Media Center to fail. Some people have to manually stop the windows update service and clear the store cache/database to do updates (how pathetic and alpha quality)

 

It has great potential, but let's not kid ourselves. You and I both know the Modern UI (WinRT) should not be in a released retail product in its current state. Especially coming from a totally dominant market leader with no excuse for this. Tablets/Phones, it's good enough. Never should have made it onto the Windows desktop with no app support, and an unstable mess (by desktop dominant OS standards).

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

WinRT is actually fairly easy to code for... Where are you getting that it's harder? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Athernar

The "Windows 7 still works fine" is what the critics are saying - not me; notice that I put it in quotes.  However, from personal experience, Windows 8.x is better than Windows 7 merely on the desktop software side of things - ModernUI (as an application subsystem) is icing for me, basically (an option , and a no-cost option).  Increased backward compatibility and increased stability (desktop software) were plenty of reason for me to upgrade - and I'm running 8.1 on Vista/7-era desktop hardware.

 

You said "Where has Windows 7 gone?", not in quotes or reference to what someone else said.

 

You simply cannot use such a defence while Microsoft continues to be aggressive and make arbitrary technical limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

I just don't agree with that. At the end of the day it's about apps. There are no killer apps for Windows 8. There are no killer apps period besides games, and they don't require Windows 8. The productivity and content creation markets are basically dominated by Microsoft and Adobe and there's nothing new there. In fact, even Adobe is moving to the cloud to generate revenue because there's not a whole lot more they can do. "unless" they were to move to Modern UI touch interface which just doesn't work too well for their products or the serious workflow.

 

Tablet apps on a desktop don't count, and don't interest many. If a good one is there, a desktop user will use it, but it's not something necessary or maybe not even something they'll pay for. Desktop users have much higher standards than the tablet/phone applet based crowd.

 

If new games such as Woflenstein: New Order, the new Frostbite 3 driven Battlefront, or even the HD 2.5d reimaging of Abe's Odyssey: New & Tasty, "required" Windows 8, I think that would spur sales. Apps that ran better or required the newest version of Windows/DX have always helped drive sales/upgrades. That doesn't exist right now. Win32 is still where the AAA games and apps (which there just aren't any period) are. And given the instability and lack of traction of the Modern UI, that doesn't appear likely to change any time soon, not on the desktop. Why does the desktop need Modern UI? It doesn't. It doesn't do more, doesn't do anything particularly better, and has no exclusive killer apps. It's just there, for Microsoft's mobile initiatives which aren't setting the world on fire.

 

The Modern UI should be ushering in new, innovative, creative applications, only it isn't. What's worse? Microsoft's own core apps are buggy shells of their Win32 counterparts. So why would 3rd party devs with fewer resources dive in? They won't, they haven't, and it appears they have no plans to. Not on the desktop.

 

Lastly, given how crappy MS' Modern Apps are, all buggy and even the most refined (Mail 8.1) missing functionality and some usability\ease\convenience of using (inherent in Modern UI on the desktop), one or more of the following must be true:

 

  • WinRT simply cannot do all the things Win32 can
  • WinRT is harder to develop for than anyone, even MS themselves anticipated
  • WinRT is shameful buggy mess that is really still at early beta stage (witness random apps still randomly spontaneously quitting, even Microsoft's. Suspended IE causing Media Center to fail. Some people have to manually stop the windows update service and clear the store cache/database to do updates (how pathetic and alpha quality)

 

It has great potential, but let's not kid ourselves. You and I both know the Modern UI (WinRT) should not be in a released retail product in its current state. Especially coming from a totally dominant market leader with no excuse for this. Tablets/Phones, it's good enough. Never should have made it onto the Windows desktop with no app support, and an unstable mess (by desktop dominant OS standards).

MorganX, what do you think of the proverb about choosing what's right over choosing what is easy?  Most people, given a choice between the two, will choose "easy" over "right", especiailly if "right" involves a transition period that can (not necessarily will) be messy and/or long in term; the best previous example (in terms of OS migration) was choosing where to move to following Windows 98 Second Edition - Windows ME was the "easy" choice, while Windows 2000 Professional was the "right"  choice.  Tablets running Android (and iOS) are another "easy" choice (compared to RT) due to price (Android) and fewer backward-compatibility issues (iOS).  It is easier for users to make a clean break than to transition - that is why RT is in trouble compared to iOS.  And that is just users.

 

Programmers and developers are, if anything, more resistant to change (if not more recalcitrant) than most ordinary users - the x32 transition alone offers plenty of data on that; how long did it take for Microsoft, and they had Windows NT itself to target? What is happening with the ModernUI app ecosystem reminds me of the early days of Win32 application development - while Office 95 was good, Office 97 was better, and Office 2000 was stellar - and that was on NT4WS, not Windows 2000 Professional (where the difference between the three suites was even more obvious).

 

If Microsoft had done as you suggest - waited until the ModernUI ecosystem was market-ready - then they would also have "user inertia" to deal with to an even greater degree than they do now.  (That is why I called RT a hedge-bet - it targets users that want the same UI/UX as Windows 8, but have no "investment" in Win32 for that particular usage niche (portable/mobility).  You are right in that it takes quality programmers and developers to take advantage of.)

 

Programmers/developers are another part of the problem for ModernUI as an app ecosystem - it IS different than Android or iOS.  If you look at the majority of ModernUI apps and games, they are, by and large, basically the equivalent of ports - how much advantage do they really take of features unique to ModernUI, compared to iOS or Android?  While you CAN write a quick and dirty (emphasis on dirty) Android or iOS and make money (on sheer volume), ModernUI as an app ecosystem is a lot less forgiving - and that's just RT; if anything, Windows 8/8.1 is even worse, because you still have the Win32/Win64 application and game competition in your face.  What is the incentive for programmers and developers to invest the time and effort (not even talking about money for training/retraining) to learn how to write proper ModernUI apps, when they can make the easy choice and stay put?  (I'm referring to Android and iOS programmers and developers.)

 

There is, if anything, even less incentive for existing desktop application programmers and developers to "cross over" - not only due to the learning/relearning curve, but due to ModernUI (as UI/UX) not breaking backward compatibility - I pointed out that not only do Windows 8 and 8.1 not break backward compatibility (compared to 7), it's even better on that front than 7.  It's why I see ModernUI as a great (if not far greater) success as a UI/UX than as an app ecosytem -  due to all of what I've laid out above.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302

I would like to see my installs get put onto the start screen, not hidden in apps waiting to get pinned to the start screen...after all I installed to be able to use the applications, not to try to find them somewhere by using either a search function or by scrolling through every application on the computer.  If I don't want it there I will un pin it or better yet uninstall it, I shouldn't have to search around for it after I installed it. 

 

It is those types of little things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+LogicalApex

WinRT is actually fairly easy to code for... Where are you getting that it's harder? 

As strange as this will initially sound; easier can actually mean harder.

 

In the arena of software development easier development usually means the platform maker has set down certain types of apps as the platform target and they have built in the majority of the plumbing needed for those applications. Other applications, ones that aren't in that target group, will be harder to develop (as the pre-written plumbing isn't there) and that difficulty could amount to a heavy burden (as you may have to engineer around the plumbing for the target app group).

 

It is very clear that writing certain types of apps is a lot easier for Metro, but writing every type of application isn't easier. Otherwise, Microsoft should have easily been able to port over a full featured mail app, for instance, as they have a plethora of existing code for this in their source tree (both for Outlook and the legions of free Windows email clients they have developed and released along the years).

Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX

::: snip::: It's why I see ModernUI as a great (if not far greater) success as a UI/UX than as an app ecosytem -  due to all of what I've laid out above.

 

I don't disagree with any of what you said. I think we mostly agree, only I don't care "why" it is, and feel it's Microsoft's responsibility to subsidize fixing the app situation. It's their platform. Seeing that is not going to happen, what's the solution? I don't think there is one. Devs aren't going to pay to build the ecosystem. If Windows mobile doesn't appeal en masse to consumers, they'll just keep building for iOS (profit margin) and Android (high volume).

 

It think MS understands their mistakes which is why they're rethinking the desktop and realizing the limitations and weaknesses of Modern UI there. It's good news that it sounds like their direction is quickly moving to the UI being different based on the medium, which really means desktop/mobile/touch. That's where they should have started.

 

The only thing I think is not a good direction, Modern apps in windows. If you will allow data sharing between the two, yes, if not, why bother, snap works better with Modern Apps. If that happens, it's MS' concession that Modern Apps on a desktop are just a novelty IMO. They work there, but no one really wants them so put them in a window and scale them at random. Hopefully they will direct devs to develop for snap views and letting them run in a Window on the desktop is in fact, just something that happens. Don't try to scale to a scalable window, scale to snap views. Or fixed ratio scaling only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anonymous persona

I just don't see the point in Windows 8 apps. For instance they have a facebook app, skype app. Why would I download that, if I could go to facebook.com, or install skype? the app makes it full screen, so in order to do other things, I would have to windows key then click desktop. ( I don't know if you can alt tab I haven't tried)  I use the start screen called Pokki , that someone told me about. I  personally had a hard time using the star screen to finding things , such as things in the control panel, or files, etc. much easier to just use the start menu. 

So in my opinion, if your on a tablet, the start screen might be easier , or a basic user, and here's why.  You want Firefox?  You install firefox, the start screen shows it. so they can just press the button.  At the same time, in my opinion at least , I suppose it can be confusing...

Overall though, even for a user that is more than basic, the start menu is better. Here's why:  I can press the "windows key"  and not go to a full  start screen, and having to go full scree to search. Example : say I am searching for a file. I search, drag it to the program I want to open it with. takes 3 seconds. without the start menu it takes longer, to windows key, then type , then whatever else. (although I think in desktop mode there is what I would call a short cut bar, or dock? but you would have to click the folder , then navigate to correct folder.  I do that a lot -- windows key-- search for ____  than open-- than continue with what I was doing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX

I just don't see the point in Windows 8 apps. For instance they have a facebook app, skype app. Why would I download that, if I could go to facebook.com, or install skype? the app makes it full screen, so in order to do other things, I would have to windows key then click desktop. ( I don't know if you can alt tab I haven't tried)  I use the start screen called Pokki , that someone told me about. I  personally had a hard time using the star screen to finding things , such as things in the control panel, or files, etc. much easier to just use the start menu. 

So in my opinion, if your on a tablet, the start screen might be easier , or a basic user, and here's why.  You want Firefox?  You install firefox, the start screen shows it. so they can just press the button.  At the same time, in my opinion at least , I suppose it can be confusing...

Overall though, even for a user that is more than basic, the start menu is better. Here's why:  I can press the "windows key"  and not go to a full  start screen, and having to go full scree to search. Example : say I am searching for a file. I search, drag it to the program I want to open it with. takes 3 seconds. without the start menu it takes longer, to windows key, then type , then whatever else. (although I think in desktop mode there is what I would call a short cut bar, or dock? but you would have to click the folder , then navigate to correct folder.  I do that a lot -- windows key-- search for ____  than open-- than continue with what I was doing. 

 

I think you chose the wrong app to try to make this point. The facebook app does not have to run full screen, and in fact, is better snapped. It's now fully functional down to 1/8 screen.

 

It's much easier to multitask with it open than a web browser whose web page doesn't scale as gracefully for functionally (if at all) as the app. You also get background toast notifications and lock screen notifications if the app isn't open. The share function is quite nice as well, but you do need to be using another Windows 8 app such as picture viewer or mail etc.

 

Probably 85% of Windows 8 apps you can make you point with (being that they're somewhat trivial if not craptastic). The facebook app isn't one of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anonymous persona

I think you chose the wrong app to try to make this point. The facebook app does not have to run full screen, and in fact, is better snapped. It's now fully functional down to 1/8 screen.

 

It's much easier to multitask with it open than a web browser whose web page doesn't scale as gracefully for functionally (if at all) as the app. You also get background toast notifications and lock screen notifications if the app isn't open. The share function is quite nice as well, but you do need to be using another Windows 8 app such as picture viewer or mail etc.

 

Probably 85% of Windows 8 apps you can make you point with (being that they're somewhat trivial if not craptastic). The facebook app isn't one of them.

oh. haven't used facebook app. well skype app sucks. ;-x  haha   still.. as other people have stated, I would probably say windows 8 metro /modern is better for a touch screen laptop/tablet, they should give you a choice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

Metro apps are no more "fullscreen" than desktop apps are. You really should know by this point that they can be "snapped," or "stacked" together across the screen, or in my case, two screens. 

 

post-420821-0-84310600-1388233876.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

I don't disagree with any of what you said. I think we mostly agree, only I don't care "why" it is, and feel it's Microsoft's responsibility to subsidize fixing the app situation. It's their platform. Seeing that is not going to happen, what's the solution? I don't think there is one. Devs aren't going to pay to build the ecosystem. If Windows mobile doesn't appeal en masse to consumers, they'll just keep building for iOS (profit margin) and Android (high volume).

 

It think MS understands their mistakes which is why they're rethinking the desktop and realizing the limitations and weaknesses of Modern UI there. It's good news that it sounds like their direction is quickly moving to the UI being different based on the medium, which really means desktop/mobile/touch. That's where they should have started.

 

The only thing I think is not a good direction, Modern apps in windows. If you will allow data sharing between the two, yes, if not, why bother, snap works better with Modern Apps. If that happens, it's MS' concession that Modern Apps on a desktop are just a novelty IMO. They work there, but no one really wants them so put them in a window and scale them at random. Hopefully they will direct devs to develop for snap views and letting them run in a Window on the desktop is in fact, just something that happens. Don't try to scale to a scalable window, scale to snap views. Or fixed ratio scaling only.

Of course they are a novelty - most developers get that, and especially if the SAME developer also writes desktop apps.

 

That is doubtless part of the problem, and why I think ModernUI's app ecosystem is more of a hedge-bet (or a novelty) than anything else.

 

Desktop applications are the bread and butter of the best developers - the last thing even they want is to see a ModernUI app (even their own) displace a desktop application (primarily due to markups on desktop vs. ModernUI versions of the same application), and there are still lots of folks that are unwilling/unable to run ModernUI, due to being on an older version of Windows - the desktop application, even for developers, is ALSO a safe choice.

 

I've been pointing out the issues with the Kindle ModernUI app since its launch, and especially compared to the Win32/desktop version (both will run on even Windows 8.1 - though Amazon has never stated this on their own site).  In addition to it being able to use customized scaling to a window (which, naturally, ModernUI can't do), the ModernUI app also lacks sync - which the Win32 desktop version has.  However, I can't fault Amazon for faulting their ModernUI app, as most developers of ModernUI apps have also given them short shrift compared to their desktop apps (or apps for other platforms).

 

Desktop applications still stir the drink in Windows - I haven't disputed that, and none of us that have spoken in favor of ModernUI have said otherwise.  The "anti" crowd is so focussed on the lack of being pointing-device-centeredness (and the app ecosystem) that they ignore the other advantages to ModernUI outside of those areas.

 

That's why I have referred to this whole ModernUI brouhaha as a "forest vs. trees" argument.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

oh. haven't used facebook app. well skype app sucks. ;-x  haha   still.. as other people have stated, I would probably say windows 8 metro /modern is better for a touch screen laptop/tablet, they should give you a choice.  

It's only better if you are reliant on using the Start menu vs. keyboard shortcuts - and that's on traditional hardware.

 

My biggest complaint with the Start menu is that it is very much pointing-device-centric - to the point that it takes away from the keyboard.  Most applications (regardless of OS) are heavily keyboard-centric - why else do even entirely touch-centric environments (such as Android and iOS) include virtual keyboards?  (A major problem with running Android VMs is mousing around in them - it can be done; however, they are clearly designed with pointing devices as an afterthought.  However, the better ModernUI apps still recognize that their users have both pointing devices and keyboards - therefore, they do not ignore either one, OR favor one over the other.)

 

That is why I have been referring to ModernUI as the most neutral multi-input-capable desktop environment anywhere.  ModernUI is NOT Android or iOS, as neither of the latter two expect pointing devices - where ModernUI differs from what has been the UI/UX before it is that it's unbiased.  The problem for users is that the Windows 7 (and earlier) UX is biased in favor of pointing devices, while the applications are (naturally) mostly biased in favor of the keyboard - with the Start menu gone, the pointing-device bias of it is also gone - hence the massive learning (or relearning) curve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer

I would like to see my installs get put onto the start screen, not hidden in apps waiting to get pinned to the start screen...after all I installed to be able to use the applications, not to try to find them somewhere by using either a search function or by scrolling through every application on the computer.  If I don't want it there I will un pin it or better yet uninstall it, I shouldn't have to search around for it after I installed it. 

 

It is those types of little things. 

sc302 - there is a second screen below the StartScreen (as of Windows 8.1/Server 2012R2) called the AppScreen - unlike the StartScreen, the  AppScreen holds everything.  (That is also why the tiles on the AppScreen are the smallest allowed size, whereas the StartScreen can use larger tiles.)  The reason for that is, in fact, quite sensible, as it roadblocks something that the Start menu (and even the desktop) are horribly prone to - clutter.  Prior to the AppScreen, I was worried that at some point, Stardock would need to create a clone of Fences to address StartScreen clutter - AppScreen does the job a lot more elegantly.  (That downward-pointing arrow on the lower left of the StartScreen is clickable - clicking it takes you to the AppScreen.

 

Lastly, you can pin a high-priority (to you).applicattion from either StartScreen OR AppScreen to the Taskbar.  Does that help?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MorganX

oh. haven't used facebook app. well skype app sucks. ;-x  haha   still.. as other people have stated, I would probably say windows 8 metro /modern is better for a touch screen laptop/tablet, they should give you a choice.  

 

I've heard similar sentiments about Skype. They do seem to be updating it regularly so hopefully it gets better. I'm not a Skype person. I guess I got spoiled by WLM being free.

 

If rumors of the direction future updates are going in, they will give users more options on the desktop. I'm willing to meet them halfway, but the my way or the highway crap will see some analysts predictions of MS' demise come closer to reality. In the end, MS will end up like IBM. Huge, Rich, but with nowhere near the influence or total control of a market they once enjoyed. Except in the enterprise and eventually that grip may loosen, but no time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302

sc302 - there is a second screen below the StartScreen (as of Windows 8.1/Server 2012R2) called the AppScreen - unlike the StartScreen, the AppScreen holds everything. (That is also why the tiles on the AppScreen are the smallest allowed size, whereas the StartScreen can use larger tiles.) The reason for that is, in fact, quite sensible, as it roadblocks something that the Start menu (and even the desktop) are horribly prone to - clutter. Prior to the AppScreen, I was worried that at some point, Stardock would need to create a clone of Fences to address StartScreen clutter - AppScreen does the job a lot more elegantly. (That downward-pointing arrow on the lower left of the StartScreen is clickable - clicking it takes you to the AppScreen.

Lastly, you can pin a high-priority (to you).applicattion from either StartScreen OR AppScreen to the Taskbar. Does that help?

Yes this made it a bit more tolerable in 8.1 but do prefer that programs should be made as part of the start screen and I should be able to decide what isn't there vs Microsoft deciding what is there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
StrikedOut

Yes this made it a bit more tolerable in 8.1 but do prefer that programs should be made as part of the start screen and I should be able to decide what isn't there vs Microsoft deciding what is there.

Its a shame that 8.1 isn't able to pick up on the install option some/most applications have of Add short cut to start menu and adding a short cut to the start screen. Or is this just common sense?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

Its a shame that 8.1 isn't able to pick up on the install option some/most applications have of Add short cut to start menu and adding a short cut to the start screen. Or is this just common sense?

Windows Store apps install silently. Gone are the days with bugging the user with millions of prompts (thank God). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm

Its a shame that 8.1 isn't able to pick up on the install option some/most applications have of Add short cut to start menu and adding a short cut to the start screen. Or is this just common sense?

I believe this was defaulted to Nothing gets pinned automatically. The reason for this was that some programs (many older ones) would pin the executable, a shortcut to the author's webpage, two help files in different formats, the readme file, a PDF Get Started guide, etc, etc. After a fresh install and getting all your programs loaded, the Start screen would be a mile long.

I agree that the option would be nice, but I don't think Microsoft yet has a mechanism where they can enforce an installer to pin the "right" shortcuts without all the junk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hagjohn

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. 

 

You really show your ignorance of Modern Apps.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Anarkii

You really show your ignorance of Modern Apps.

Its not ignorance when EVERY modern app performs better in a web browser, has more features, and is faster. 

Some look cool, but functionality in pretty much all of the ones listed are dismal at best.

Sorry mate, Ill be sticking to the desktop on 8.1.

  • 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.