Alwaysonacoffebreak Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I am quitting game on Windows now so maybe it's a good time to head to the *nix also. If there's a DirectX engine in the *nix OS, I think you probably going to see a very sharp rise in *nix adoption. So...another "Year of the linux" again huh? Ian W, Romero, paul0544 and 3 others 6 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macoman Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I would like to publicly thank Microsoft for Windows 8. It forced me to take another look at Linux. Now, six months into using Debian, I haven't looked back. Again, thank you and best of luck in the future. Sincerely, Former Customer I have an old laptop with Debian but I can't move to a completely Linux environment. I work with Windows and there is nothing similar that can take away the tools and quality that you get in Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romero Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 From what I understand, 8.1 was a "major" update, and the update that brings back the start menu is just "a future windows update", meaning it might be 8.1 update 3, or 9. IIRC they said future free update to Windows 8, not 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 What does all that talk actually mean, though? Is the Desktop aspect of Windows going to get new features? Will they update the icons to make it look more Metro? Can I have multiple taskbars on multiple monitors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplezz Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 So basically what we're finally hearing from Microsoft after 2 years of contradictory marketing, is that the full-screen app launcher and limited multi-tasking mode introduced in Win8 were designed to provide a great experience on touch, phone and tablet form factors, but they don't make sense on a 30 inch monitor sitting on a desktop. The return of the start menu is about "nailing the experience on the desktop". So clearly they knew that Metro in its current state was the wrong paradigm for desktop users, and still they removed the start menu and booted directly to the start screen despite that knowledge . It was a cynical attempt at exploiting Window's desktop monopoly to push their mobile agenda. Superboy, +Warwagon and Torolol 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 6, 2014 Global Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2014 What does all that talk actually mean, though? Is the Desktop aspect of Windows going to get new features? Will they update the icons to make it look more Metro? Can I have multiple taskbars on multiple monitors? You've been able to have multiple/extended taskbar on multi-monitor since 8.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian W Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Even after watching the desktop presentations it's not clear to me where they intend to take the desktop. On one hand they seem commited to evolving it enough so that it keeps working well on higher DPI screens, on the other they've called WPF a "mature" technology which isn't likely to see major improvements. It'd be nice if they decided to use something like WPF for the desktop. It seems that they tried to do something similar in 2003. "One of the other more impressive demos, especially on a high DPI display, involves window scaling, where the user can arbitrarily rescale--not resize--a window, causing its on-screen text and graphics to smoothly redisplay properly regardless of the size of the window." Matthew_Thepc, Brony and Pulagatha 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pulagatha Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 It'd be nice if they decided to use something like WPF for the desktop. It seems that they tried to do something similar in 2003. "One of the other more impressive demos, especially on a high DPI display, involves window scaling, where the user can arbitrarily rescale--not resize--a window, causing its on-screen text and graphics to smoothly redisplay properly regardless of the size of the window." I think this is something that would work very well for the Metro apps. If they did this and set a minimal window size. I think that would work well with the tablet apps as well as the desktop apps (the minimal window size thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 6, 2014 Global Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2014 Metro apps don't have a problem scaling, they resize or they just expand the UI and show you more content on a bigger screen, it's up to the developer. The problem with the desktop and legacy apps is that GDI doesn't handle this well, having any range possible for the user to set is a developers nightmare. This is why they've always used presets, 100%, 150% 200% etc, less of a headache. WPF is used by MS already, it's just that we still have to support GDI, the Windows UI, be it the start screen and metro or the desktop and explorer, in this case the shell itself, since vista, is pumped through wddm and uses DirectX. The problem is that you can't scale just some things, metro and WPF apps and leave GDI apps behind. I know for sure VS is already a WPF app, and I'm going to guess that Office, since 2010, is also a WPF app. The "desktop", or the DWM, doesn't care, it's the apps that need to support things from the start. Metro/WINRT apps already do by their nature so it's not an issue for them. MS is making it easier to take older GDI apps and move them over to WPF though, I remember a demo at BUILD that showed them taking some old VB6 apps and making it WPF but that's not all you have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elenarie Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Thanks for the link, I'll check out the session tomorrow. and I'm going to guess that Office, since 2010, is also a WPF app. Yep, they said during one of the sessions that Office's UI is built using WPF and the rendering engine of the content is built using DirectX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The desktop should of been the first step, considering 90% of people who own a Windows licence use it on the desktop. And nothing in Windows 8 killed the desktop - nothing at all. Assuming that the death of the Start menu killed the desktop utterly ignores that those that aren't Start-menu-centric still use desktop application, games, etc., without a problem. (For those that doubt it, go to pages 30-40 in the Microsoft beta forum right here on Neowin - desktop applications were what got thrown at Windows 8 - by me - first and primarily. Nothing broke - at all. If a primary desktop application were to break, I would not have basically "fired" Windows 7 prior to 8's RTM. I didn't have a touch-screen then, and don't today. Since I'm running 8.1 on a traditional desktop - and nothing broke - touch certainly has nothing to do with it.) Also, let's face facts - other than Office, what has changed, in terms of desktop applications, merely since the launch of Windows 7? (Heck; even in terms of Office 2013 vs. 2010, the changes were mostly evolutionary vs. revolutionary - even the addition of auto-detection for IMAP4 falls into that category, as auto-detection for POP3 was in Ofice 2010. x64 also began with Office 2010 - therefore, "evolutionary", not revolutionary.) simplezz - you are basically wedded to the "self-contained" simplistic OS viewpoint that both Google and Apple have been pushing - to their benefit. (Google really has no choice - they don't HAVE a desktop OS, though Android could certainly become one; see my post in the Android subforum "Android x86 - KitKat meets Kentsfield?".) Apple certainly wants to keep OS X and iOS as far away from each other in terms of application commonality as possible - if anything, they are being pushed further and further apart with each iteration. That certainly does NOT benefit Microsoft. Why does a multimodal OS scare so many people - especially since nothing really broke? Dunkleybwoy and DConnell 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Anarkii Subscriber² Posted April 7, 2014 Subscriber² Share Posted April 7, 2014 Not once did I say that the desktop is dead. I just said that the desktop is where Microsoft should of focussed their energies first when making Windows 8, and is a major factor why Windows 8 was critically panned upon its release. With Windows 8.1 U1, Microsoft seem to finally acknowledge desktop users which can only be a positive thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFH Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Romero, on 05 Apr 2014 - 12:40, said:Romero, on 05 Apr 2014 - 12:40, said:IIRC they said future free update to Windows 8, not 9. Did they really say "free"?! I'm asking because both Mary Jo Foley and Paul Thurrot mentioned that "update to Windows 8" very well can mean "Windows 9"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen8 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I think a perfect name for the next version of Windows would be Windows 360 f0rk_b0mb 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DConnell Member Posted April 7, 2014 Member Share Posted April 7, 2014 The desktop should of been the first step, considering 90% of people who own a Windows licence use it on the desktop. Desktop as in "desktop computer" or desktop as in sticking to the desktop UI? The two aren't synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Desktop as in "desktop computer" or desktop as in sticking to the desktop UI? The two aren't synonymous. DConnell - I think most of the critics mean both desktop-formfactor AND the desktop UI. Never mind that desktop-application development has been pretty much moribund since Windows 7's launch, and that sales of traditional desktop-formfactor hardware - either whole systems or BYOPC - have basically stalled, also since the launch of 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DConnell Member Posted April 7, 2014 Member Share Posted April 7, 2014 DConnell - I think most of the critics mean both desktop-formfactor AND the desktop UI. Never mind that desktop-application development has been pretty much moribund since Windows 7's launch, and that sales of traditional desktop-formfactor hardware - either whole systems or BYOPC - have basically stalled, also since the launch of 7. Probably, but the two are not one and the same. I think a big part of the problem MS is facing is people think the stationary form factor and desktop UI must go hand-in-hand, simply because that's how it's always been. I don't really understand the iron-clad association, but then I started out with the command line. On a Commodore 64. With a box of scraps . . . For me the desktop is just one possible UI design, ideal for some use cases but not for others. And even for some stationary PC users the wide-open, allow anything desktop is a negative. How many service calls for basic users could be avoided by having them stick to the sandboxed Modern interface and apps? How many people could actually benefit from the security Modern provides, but are told "it only works with touch" or "you can't use it on a 'desktop computer' "? Power users need the desktop. I certainly can't do without it, though I prefer Modern when possible. Regular users, don't necessarily always need it, but think they do because that's what they've always used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Never mind that desktop-application development has been pretty much moribund since Windows 7's launch\ That's a bit of a stretch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted April 7, 2014 MVC Share Posted April 7, 2014 Correct. The desktop is not dead despite what people are saying. This just proves what myself and others have been saying from the start. They need something that makes people want to use Windows 8. Went over to a customers house last night to setup up their windows 8 machine. They said they went to staples to check what they had. They said that the guy working at stapes told them they can't keep windows 7 machines on the shelf, they sell like hot cakes. They also said the dell representative told them over the phone (where they ordered their windows 8 machine) there is a very long wait for Windows 7 machines because they are in such high demand. This is Microsoft's problem. I think all of the back pedaling they are doing is great. The return on the start menu will definitely help. I think it should detect if you have touch and configure properly or at the very least on first boot give the user a choice. Someone once said they keep hearing me say the same thing over and over again. It's not because I don't want to tell stories about people who like or say good things about Windows 8, it's just that no one ever says that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Probably, but the two are not one and the same. I think a big part of the problem MS is facing is people think the stationary form factor and desktop UI must go hand-in-hand, because that's how it's always been. Never mind that even that has not been the case since XP (prior to any service packs) - consider Toshiba. Toshiba does ONLY portable PCs - laptops, notebooks, Ultrabooks, and their progeny. The same is true of Samsung - and that is despite both companies being far from minor participants in the BYOPC parts space (SSDs in particular). Let's look at the big global OEMs in the whole-PC market - how many are basically being kept afloat by sales of portable PCs? It's certainly true of Dell, HP, and even Lenovo - and likely is just as true of Acer All six of the companies I have named have been in the portable-PC business at least as far back as XP - however, since 7, it is sales of portable hardware that are keeping them afloat. (Note that Dell and HP are putting an even larger emphasis than ever on portable hardware, and even Lenovo has continued the portable push it has been making since Windows 8's launch.) That is likely what is leading to the angst and horror - those same OEMs are not pushing desktop hardware hard at all. It's not Microsoft - and not even Windows 8 - that started the de-emphasis of the desktop formfactor; if anything is to blame for that, it is the twofold whammy of a global recession AND longer-lasting desktop-formfactor hardware since 2006, if not 2004. There has been a movement toward mobility since before the Developer Preview - in business in general, primarily in the name of "expense shedding". (I'm not getting that from IT-facing Web sites, but from CNBC and the Wall Street Journal.) Desktop-formfactor sales have been flat, if not outright horrible, while the desktop-application space is full of "meh". Never mind that both started before the first leak of what would be Windows 8; "it's all Microsoft's fault" - even though Microsoft gained exactly nothing. That's a bit of a stretch... Then tell me - what has there been new or revolutionary in the desktop-application space, and especially the everyday-application space, merely since Windows 7 (not 8) went RTM? Not games, but applications. DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Never mind that even that has not been the case since XP (prior to any service packs) - consider Toshiba. Toshiba does ONLY portable PCs - laptops, notebooks, Ultrabooks, and their progeny. The same is true of Samsung - and that is despite both companies being far from minor participants in the BYOPC parts space (SSDs in particular). Let's look at the big global OEMs in the whole-PC market - how many are basically being kept afloat by sales of portable PCs? It's certainly true of Dell, HP, and even Lenovo - and likely is just as true of Acer All six of the companies I have named have been in the portable-PC business at least as far back as XP - however, since 7, it is sales of portable hardware that are keeping them afloat. (Note that Dell and HP are putting an even larger emphasis than ever on portable hardware, and even Lenovo has continued the portable push it has been making since Windows 8's launch.) That is likely what is leading to the angst and horror - those same OEMs are not pushing desktop hardware hard at all. It's not Microsoft - and not even Windows 8 - that started the de-emphasis of the desktop formfactor; if anything is to blame for that, it is the twofold whammy of a global recession AND longer-lasting desktop-formfactor hardware since 2006, if not 2004. There has been a movement toward mobility since before the Developer Preview - in business in general, primarily in the name of "expense shedding". (I'm not getting that from IT-facing Web sites, but from CNBC and the Wall Street Journal.) Desktop-formfactor sales have been flat, if not outright horrible, while the desktop-application space is full of "meh". Never mind that both started before the first leak of what would be Windows 8; "it's all Microsoft's fault" - even though Microsoft gained exactly nothing. Then tell me - what has there been new or revolutionary in the desktop-application space, and especially the everyday-application space, merely since Windows 7 (not 8) went RTM? Not games, but applications. Just because there hasn't been some 'revolutionary' (and this is rather vague...) app since win 7/8 on the desktop, does not mean desktop development is nearing the point of death, that's hyperbolic. There are still tons of widely used, actively developed desktop applications. And many people that do use win8 on the desktop prefer to use desktop apps over modern apps because they are usually more powerful, have interfaces better suited to the desktop form factor etc... I don't think anyone will argue that the desktop space isn't shrinking, and will continue to shrink, but its far from 'dead', and I doubt we will see desktops/desktop applications die out anytime soon (or ever, eventually they may become somewhat 'niche', but that will probably be the extent of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Correct. The desktop is not dead despite what people are saying. This just proves what myself and others have been saying from the start. They need something that makes people want to use Windows 8. Went over to a customers house last night to setup up their windows 8 machine. They said they went to staples to check what they had. They said that the guy working at stapes told them they can't keep windows 7 machines on the shelf, they sell like hot cakes. They also said the dell representative told them over the phone (where they ordered their windows 8 machine) there is a very long wait for Windows 7 machines because they are in such high demand. This is Microsoft's problem. I think all of the back pedaling they are doing is great. The return on the start menu will definitely help. I think it should detect if you have touch and configure properly or at the very least on first boot give the user a choice. Someone once said they keep hearing me say the same thing over and over again. It's not because I don't want to tell stories about people who like or say good things about Windows 8, it's just that no one ever says that. I didn't say it was dead - I HAVE said, however, that it is basically flat-lining. Where are the new and revolutionary (or even simply revolutionary) desktop applications that launched merely after Windows 7 did? Can anyone in this forum name so many as one? Even Microsoft Office and Visual Studio - easily the two most-used of Microsoft's own applications by Neowinians - made only evolutionary improvements since merely Office 2010 and VS 2010, respectively. Desktop applications work just fine in Windows 8 - developing those makes sense as the same application can target as far back as Vista if x64, or even XP if x32. However, there is a penalty (as a developer) that you incur by casting a wide OS-compatibility net - you are bound by the capabilities of the oldest OS (XP, of course). That is something even mobile-OS developers are doing less and less (targeting older versions of Android or iOS) - in fact, how many iOS developers are supporting iOS 6 or earlier at all any more? Insistence on older-OS support leads to "meh" - no matter what OS you are developing for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I didn't say it was dead - I HAVE said, however, that it is basically flat-lining. Where are the new and revolutionary (or even simply revolutionary) desktop applications that launched merely after Windows 7 did? Can anyone in this forum name so many as one? Even Microsoft Office and Visual Studio - easily the two most-used of Microsoft's own applications by Neowinians - made only evolutionary improvements since merely Office 2010 and VS 2010, respectively. Desktop applications work just fine in Windows 8 - developing those makes sense as the same application can target as far back as Vista if x64, or even XP if x32. However, there is a penalty (as a developer) that you incur by casting a wide OS-compatibility net - you are bound by the capabilities of the oldest OS (XP, of course). That is something even mobile-OS developers are doing less and less (targeting older versions of Android or iOS) - in fact, how many iOS developers are supporting iOS 6 or earlier at all any more? Insistence on older-OS support leads to "meh" - no matter what OS you are developing for. The desktop is a mature platform, evolutionary improvements are the norm. The mobile space is much younger so of course there's a lot more 'revolutionary' things going on there. Just because the desktop is at a mature state does not mean that its dead/dying. Pulagatha 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Just because there hasn't been some 'revolutionary' (and this is rather vague...) app since win 7/8 on the desktop, does not mean desktop development is nearing the point of death, that's hyperbolic. There are still tons of widely used, actively developed desktop applications. And many people that do use win8 on the desktop prefer to use desktop apps over modern apps because they are usually more powerful, have interfaces better suited to the desktop form factor etc... I don't think anyone will argue that the desktop space isn't shrinking, and will continue to shrink, but its far from 'dead', and I doubt we will see desktops/desktop applications die out anytime soon (or ever, eventually they may become somewhat 'niche', but that will probably be the extent of it). And thus the "meh" continueth - that isn't exactly pushing folks to upgrade hardware, applications OR operating systems, is it? The niche-ification of the desktop UI (though more than likely the desktop formfactor's niche-ification will happen first) should be a concern for both desktop application users AND their developers - if desktop application features devolve into basically maintenance releases, those same applications will become ripe for getting their marketshare attacked - didn't exactly that happen to Netscape Navigator? (Hasn't exactly that happened to the mainframe computer?) The relevancy of the desktop UI is certainly concerning to Microsoft; what I don't get is why desktop application users or developers are NOT concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The desktop is a mature platform, evolutionary improvements are the norm. The mobile space is much younger so of course there's a lot more 'revolutionary' things going on there. Just because the desktop is at a mature state does not mean that its dead/dying. ViperAFK - I heard those exact comments from mainframe-application programmers and developers when Windows 3.0 launched; where is the mainframe today? While not dead, it is certainly a great deal less than what it was, even then - and it was already in decline merely at Windows 3.0's launch. Is the thinking THAT short-term? DConnell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts