WZOR Talks About Windows (Codename) 9, Is a DP Imminent?

[George P Global Moderator]

I think they are just using the tab to switch between the selection of the window in VD view, I don't think there is a combo yet.It also looks like the Virtual Desktop view can get pretty crowded, hopefully they can fix that somehow. 

 

It could just look like that because it's in a VM and the resolution is lower than what you'll probably run it at, which is why those preview/thumbnail windows look so big overall.

[Ian S.]

It could just look like that because it's in a VM and the resolution is lower than what you'll probably run it at, which is why those preview/thumbnail windows look so big overall.

What I mean is if you open a bunch of desktop apps in one Environment, it will get too crowded for you to see which is which and to sort it out into the multiple desktops.

 

Something like this but with more Windows:

http://winfuture.de/screenshots/iframe/10813/1410543925/5/1635/919#

[George P Global Moderator]

What I mean is if you open a bunch of desktop apps in one Environment, it will get too crowded for you to see which is which and to sort it out into the multiple desktops.

 

Something like this but with more Windows:

http://winfuture.de/screenshots/iframe/10813/1410543925/5/1635/919#

 

Right, but it's the size of the previews that make it look that way, IMO.   Could just be a scaling issue, My alt-tab box is full of open windows but because MS has it so small overall, when it comes up it doesn't feel/look that crowded to me.

[PGHammer]

Right, but it's the size of the previews that make it look that way, IMO.   Could just be a scaling issue, My alt-tab box is full of open windows but because MS has it so small overall, when it comes up it doesn't feel/look that crowded to me.

The multiple-applications-in-a-single-desktop is a problem that all multi-desktop environments have always had - Windows, Linux, UNIX, etc.  While Windows has not had a multi-desktop utility as part of the OS core, it HAS had multi-desktop utilities - Stardock has had one as part of Object Desktop for nearly a decade; in fact, Stardock was actually late to that party on Windows - two of the earliest multi-desktop utilities were from graphics-chipset brands Matrox and ATI Technologies.  It has to do with a tendency that users - both new and veteran - have with multi-desktop utilities; they will have a "home" desktop, with others as secondary desktops.

[PGHammer]

Yet, what Microsoft is facing is lack of support from their clients. Why? If it is so good why do people hate it? People hate change? Yes, usually we as humans do not like change, but smartphones and tablets were a change too and people adopted them, but a corporation cannot simply say "hey, those dumbasses do not understand our view, f*** 'em", you may have to take into account that the kind of change you're delivering is not what people were expecting.

 

I'll ask you the same question: then why people seem to hate anything Metro?

 

I'm not saying that Metro should be wiped out of existence, I believe it has its place, on Touch devices.

 

What about the millions who absolutely refuse to upgrade? Considering Microsoft's market share I'd say that adoption is almost non-existent.

 

Future, progress, are all great things, but as a business you have to make sure that your product, your vision, is what people want and need, unless you end up having people clinging to older OS or migrating to other platforms.

 

I mean, I couldn't care less about this, I'm not a Microsoft shareholder and I could do what I do on other platforms too, but I like Windows and would like to see Microsoft not forcing Metro at all costs, just give me, as a user, the opportunity to completely erase Metro from my PC, what should they care wether I use an app or my browser, or a webmail interface instead of the app, etc, as long as I buy their product? I already use all their products and services, why can't they let me use them the way I want? Do some of you think that people like me prefer to live in the past? But again, why should you care? I'm used to my way of working and find it more efficient than learning a new one; a lot of people share my view, does Microsoft still want our money? Then let me/us/them just keep doing our stuff the way we want to, call it freedom of choice if you will. All I'd like to see is freedom of customization, that's all.

 

PS: No, I think Windows 7 si far superior to XP, I'm just a tightwad :laugh:

By insisting on relegating it to touch devices, you are ignoring the usefulness of ModernUI - even without touch support - for the everyday PC user.

 

While ModernUI has better support for touch than the "standard" desktop UI, IS there a "standard" desktop UI?

 

From what I have seen (merely going from XP to Windows 7), there isn't.

 

There are more desktop-application UIs than there are application companies - how many different UIs are there just within Microsoft Office?

 

Throw in other companies and their desktop applications, and you have a horrible hodgepodge.

 

ModernUI basically hits the reset button on application UIs - there is a single set of core UI elements that are mandatory.  Even better, ModernUI doesn't discriminate - you don't need touch support for a ModernUI application. (You don't need mouse support, either - much to my own shock.)

 

However, if you are used to having to rely on having a pointing device - whether it is your preference or not - NOT having to rely on it is a shake-up factor.

 

ModernUI is elegant, simple, and practically utilitarian.  It isn't like we haven't seen such elegance before - however, nowadays, it's uncommon - especially in terms of desktop software for Windows.  (It IS common enough on OS X - especially in terms of third-party software.  However, even on OS X, the trend is toward "busier" UIs.)

 

The complaints about "aesthetics" - which started with the Developer Preview of Windows 8 - are more about that sea-change that ModernUI itself represents.  ModernUI bucks the complication trend by being simple.  It's not that simple doesn't work; however, simple is more common in a MOBILE setting (smartphones, tablets, etc.) - hence the semi-deliberate dismissal of ModernUI as being a tablet/touch-centric UI.

 

Here is my response - why does an application UI have to be complicated?

[Dot Matrix]

Here is my response - why does an application UI have to be complicated?

It doesn't. And I cannot stand how some legacy desktop developers just half ass their application's UX. UI is everything, and if you're just going to throw controls everywhere, then chances are I won't be using your application.

[blank]

Man they gotta get rid of that ugly shell theme, or at least give us choices now.

thats the main reason now i can't stay with windows 8.1, too ugly to use.

 

Give us more options, bruhs.

 

I like my things to be pretty. Like little baby butterflies.

 

if they do this, I'll gladly pay and use it.

[Quillz]

Man they gotta get rid of that ugly shell theme, or at least give us choices now.

thats the main reason now i can't stay with windows 8.1, too ugly to use.

 

Give us more options, bruhs.

 

I like my things to be pretty. Like little baby butterflies.

 

if they do this, I'll gladly pay and use it.

I don't think Win9 still stop you from patching uxtheme.dll and installing any theme you want.

 

Not to mention beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the Win8 UI, it's simple. Square windows, chrome color that matches your wallpaper. It gets out the way, like a UI should.

[blank]

I don't think Win9 still stop you from patching uxtheme.dll and installing any theme you want.

 

Not to mention beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the Win8 UI, it's simple. Square windows, chrome color that matches your wallpaper. It gets out the way, like a UI should.

 

They don't work properly. Tried.

Can get a theme working, but then you still have the ugly solid color behind window titles, and many more such things like that that just throw the look and feel off.

 

Do it properly, and i'll use it.

 

You can like what you want, but give us all the option.

 

The flat, dull, boring look is such a step backwards.

and ditto to you.

[notchinese]

They don't work properly. Tried.

Can get a theme working, but then you still have the ugly solid color behind window titles, and many more such things like that that just throw the look and feel off.

 

Do it properly, and i'll use it.

 

You can like what you want, but give us all the option.

 

The flat, dull, boring look is such a step backwards.

and ditto to you.

 

Most mainstream OS's have followed suit with the "flat ,dull, boring look" as you call it.  And they ALL look better for doing so IMO.

[Quillz]

The main thing that bothers me is how many options Win8 took away. You can't alter the font, the title bar color, etc. (At least, not easily... Some things are still possible via Registry edits). And I can't figure out for the life of me why these decisions were made. You've been able to change the font of, say, icons and title bars since... Windows 1.0? Likewise, in Win8, using black window chrome is almost impossible because the title bar text is hardcoded to be black, making it unreadable. Why these things can't be altered, I have no idea.

 

Win9 should introduce customization as a "new" feature.

[Gabe84]

By insisting on relegating it to touch devices, you are ignoring the usefulness of ModernUI - even without touch support - for the everyday PC user.

 

While ModernUI has better support for touch than the "standard" desktop UI, IS there a "standard" desktop UI?

 

From what I have seen (merely going from XP to Windows 7), there isn't.

 

There are more desktop-application UIs than there are application companies - how many different UIs are there just within Microsoft Office?

 

Throw in other companies and their desktop applications, and you have a horrible hodgepodge.

 

ModernUI basically hits the reset button on application UIs - there is a single set of core UI elements that are mandatory.  Even better, ModernUI doesn't discriminate - you don't need touch support for a ModernUI application. (You don't need mouse support, either - much to my own shock.)

 

However, if you are used to having to rely on having a pointing device - whether it is your preference or not - NOT having to rely on it is a shake-up factor.

 

ModernUI is elegant, simple, and practically utilitarian.  It isn't like we haven't seen such elegance before - however, nowadays, it's uncommon - especially in terms of desktop software for Windows.  (It IS common enough on OS X - especially in terms of third-party software.  However, even on OS X, the trend is toward "busier" UIs.)

 

The complaints about "aesthetics" - which started with the Developer Preview of Windows 8 - are more about that sea-change that ModernUI itself represents.  ModernUI bucks the complication trend by being simple.  It's not that simple doesn't work; however, simple is more common in a MOBILE setting (smartphones, tablets, etc.) - hence the semi-deliberate dismissal of ModernUI as being a tablet/touch-centric UI.

 

Here is my response - why does an application UI have to be complicated?

It's just a matter of personal tastes, personally I don't like flat design in general, be it Windows 9 or Yosemite, I find it too simple, childish, something I think it's more appropriate in a children's book.

 

Luckily we're talking about Windows, so I'm sure there will be plenty of options regarding UI customization.

[PGHammer]

Most mainstream OS's have followed suit with the "flat ,dull, boring look" as you call it.  And they ALL look better for doing so IMO.

Most DO, in fact, look better -- in the case of Yosemite, it is decidedly flatter and more elegant than Mavericks.  There is also a performance advantage for a flat UI compared to a fancy or "busy" UI - it was first noticed with Android KitKat (compared to ICS) and Windows 8 was flatter compared to 7 (which was something complained about) - however, there were some performance gains with the flatter UI compared to 7 as well.  The performance improvements are more noticeable with non-desktop hardware (mostly in the form of improved battery life) - however, desktops also benefit.

 

However, too many desktop users could care less about lower energy costs.

[Defcon]

The main thing that bothers me is how many options Win8 took away. You can't alter the font, the title bar color, etc. (At least, not easily... Some things are still possible via Registry edits). And I can't figure out for the life of me why these decisions were made. You've been able to change the font of, say, icons and title bars since... Windows 1.0? Likewise, in Win8, using black window chrome is almost impossible because the title bar text is hardcoded to be black, making it unreadable. Why these things can't be altered, I have no idea.

 

Win9 should introduce customization as a "new" feature.

The answer is simple - blame Sinofsky.

[PGHammer]

The answer is simple - blame Sinofsky.

I don't blame Sinofsky - but then, unlike a lot of the enterprise users, I also liked Windows 8 as it was.

 

In fact, I just added another Dead Hardware Express PC that is now running Windows 8.1 ProWMC - the difference is that this one is portable.  It is also the oldest PC - of any sort - that I have installed Windows 8 x64 (or 7 x64 for that matter) on.

 

The portable in question is the HP Pavilion 9700 Altec Lansing Edition.  (This is the portable that the Envy with Beats Audio replaced in HP's portable lineup.)

 

This particular model has an AMD Turion x64 CPU, a decidedly atypical nForce Mobile chipset (even then, nForce Mobile chipsets were uncommon in Turion-driven portables), and a trainload of portable-media options - which you would need, as the typical HDD in this media-driven notebook is all of 150 GB (including restore partition).

 

Despite the age (it's older than the tower PC I just replaced the motherboard in), I had no problems at all getting it up and running with 8.1.  (None whatever - I actually started with the notebook in wireless - not wired - mode; I couldn't have done so installing Windows Vista, for example - and that was the original default OS.)

 

The super-small HDD doesn't bother me - I'll be using this portable as an e-mail and workbook portable - the porkiest application going on it is Microsoft Office.  Besides, if I ever feel cramped, I CAN always throw a 512 GB Crucial SSD (either MX100 or m4) in it; either one is no worse than $200 retail.  (To put the size in perspective, that is three times the size of the HDD it came with.)