The Great Modern UI Debate Thread

[PGHammer]

I think most people complaining here are people who never used a computer before Windows 95, and just assume that's the way Windows has always been and always should be. It's still funny to me to see so many people in IT, a field that should be interested in change/progress/..., complain so much about such small changes in work flow.

The word is *complacency", Stoffel - which the absolute LAST thing that should be present in IT, and especially IT support.  The most obvious example of what happens in IT when you are complacent remains IBM - once again, it is the absolute WORST-performing stock in the S&P 500 - in fact, Big Blue has been in the Bottom Ten of the S&P 500 every year this century - in fact, most of the century it has been dead-last.  (Pretty much the only thing saving it from getting bounced altogether is tradition - however, how much can that keep saving it from ejection, given the horrible performance?  I have to wonder if even Warren Buffett - who recently acquired a significant stake in IBM - could do it.)

[Dot Matrix]

I think most people complaining here are people who never used a computer before Windows 95, and just assume that's the way Windows has always been and always should be. It's still funny to me to see so many people in IT, a field that should be interested in change/progress/..., complain so much about such small changes in work flow.

IT is full of older associates who have become complacent, exactly as you described. Any changes to operating systems goes against the natural order of things in their view. Which is kinda strange, and sad to see, as IT is the last job field you would want someone to become complacent. Especially, if you work InfoSec.

[Ian S.]

Slightly off topic, but this just came to me:

 

What if they called the desktop-less Windows 10: "Windows 10 touch" ?

The one that runs on phones

Is free for devices <7" 

Because ARM and SoC is such a bad name for consumers to know and it is also supposed to be able to run on intel.

[Dot Matrix]

Slightly off topic, but this just came to me:

 

What if they called the desktop-less Windows 10: "Windows 10 touch" ?

The one that runs on phones

Is free for devices <7" 

Because ARM and SoC is such a bad name for consumers to know and it is also supposed to be able to run on intel.

There's no need for that. All that would be doing is creating a diveide on an OS that is supposed to be unifying.

[Ian S.]

There's no need for that. All that would be doing is creating a diveide on an OS that is supposed to be unifying.

Then how would you differentiate between the desktop-less version and the version with a desktop?

[Dot Matrix]

Then how would you differentiate between the desktop-less version and the version with a desktop?

Simple. People have come to expect the desktop only on desktop class devices. They already know it isn't available on phone and RT class devices.

[BajiRav]

Then how would you differentiate between the desktop-less version and the version with a desktop?

Do you really need to though? I don't use the desktop on my Stream 7 and can't imagine using it on my phone either.

[Dot Matrix]

IT is full of older associates who have become complacent, exactly as you described. Any changes to operating systems goes against the natural order of things in their view. Which is kinda strange, and sad to see, as IT is the last job field you would want someone to become complacent. Especially, if you work InfoSec.

To expand on this, I've started to notice kids who look at mice as foriegn objects. They're confused when they can't interact with the computer by touch. It's these kids who will someday bring more changes to the computing world.

Where I work also, younger employees are begging and begging for computer upgrades, so that they're not using "the OS I had when I was a kid".

Change is coming whether you want it to or not. These upcoming associates are going to be the drivers in workforce IT, not the older folks anymore. We grew up using desktop clunkers, that forced us to sit at a desk. These kids are growing up with smartphones and tablets, and that's the experience they'll be brining to work with them.

[PGHammer]

Slightly off topic, but this just came to me:

 

What if they called the desktop-less Windows 10: "Windows 10 touch" ?

The one that runs on phones

Is free for devices <7" 

Because ARM and SoC is such a bad name for consumers to know and it is also supposed to be able to run on intel.

It would be a misnomer, as ALL versions of Windows 10 support touch - just as all versions of Windows 8 do.  Android and iOS support touch - that is agreed.  Still, both are utterly usable without it.  (Hello - ASUS Transformer Prime, anyone?  Ran Android as only OS, and included a keyboard, and USB ports usable by, among other things, wired or wireless mice.)  Depriving Windows 10 of touch support is rather simple - don't include support for touch in the hardware.  (None of the hardware I run Windows 8.x - or 10 Technical Preview, for that matter - supports touch.  Has it roadblocked usage of the OS and applications thereof?  The answer is a resounding "no".  Is using ModernUI - in 8 or later - a problem without touch support?  Still no.  So why - other than being unused to it - would touch support - or lack of it - be an issue?)

The assumption (around Android in particular) is that because most (not all) Android devices don't include keyboards (or mice) that the OS doesn't support them.  The same assumption is made about iOS - and it's just as untrue.

[PGHammer]

No, I'm accusing Microsoft of failing by not including the start menu. You don't seem to understand that this isn't about third-party tools not working, it's about Microsoft making a horrible design decision. If my "dirty work" equals using the computer the same way I've been using it for the past 15+ years then yes, that's what I'm asking Microsoft to do.

 

 

 

Dunno what you mean exactly but if you remove the live tiles in TP it *is* the start menu, for all intents and purposes. In fact I prefer it to Vista/W7's start menu (I just wish there was an easy way to pin control panel). If you want to argue semantics, the start screen is also a start menu that opens full-screen and looks like the start menu except streched to fill the entire screen.

 

 

 

You could use program manager until XP SP2. Also, taking away something that worked for the past 17 years isn't exactly the same as not including something that had never really been a part of windows since the early 90s

Nobody forced Windows 8 (or 8.1, for that matter) on you - you could have stayed put with Windows 7 (and most users that didn't upgrade their hardware did).  I, on the other hand, chose to upgrade the OS - and without changing the hardware - however, I tested the heck out of it, and decided - for myself - that the performance upgrades with existing hardware (and software - including applications and games) were worth it.  While I did initially approve of Explorer and the Start menu (with Windows 95), that approval was far from unanimous - the constant patching and patching (without a rewrite) of the Start menu (both front and back ends) made things worse over the 9x-to-XP period.  Between XP and 7, we got more patching - there was NOT a rewrite of either Explorer OR the Start menu, despite the code change; instead, more patching got done.  While there were some improvements from the patches, the patching itself created an awful lot of cruft.  Naturally, lower-end PCs noticed it the most - but then, the hardware bar largely stayed put, somewhat from XP, and definitely from Vista.  The reason why I upgraded to 8 was due to performance increases for my existing software on my existing hardware - period.  The lack of Start menu was a definite plus - but I have lots of reason to believe that getting rid of the cruft from patch after patch after patch/update was the biggest reason for the performance gains - remember, neither applications or hardware changed at all.  I knew that approval would not be unanimous - Start menu and Explorer, anyone?  I expected - and saw lots of - third-party Start menu bringbacks.  (No problem with those - that is third parties doing their job.)  What made NO sense was an insistence - by the very folks that insisted on the bringbacks - that Microsoft throw them all under the bus.

[Noir Angel]

Personally I'd rather get rid of it completely and let Microsoft develop their tablet OS separately but if they insist on keeping it in Windows I would personally prefer it if I could use my desktop without having to interact with a single piece of Metro crap.

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

 

If you can't debate something civilly and stay on topic then don't post in the thread.

[Kazama Levi]

Metro was invented for Windows Phone 7 as a phone interface only.

Microsoft themselves say so in this toolbox article:

http://www.microsoft.com/design/toolbox/tutorials/windows-phone-7/metro/

(The above link isn't online anymore, but an archived copy can be found here.)

Metro Design Language of Windows Phone 7

 

Metro is the name of the new design language created for the Windows Phone 7 interface. When given the chance for a fresh start, the Windows Phone design team drew from many sources of inspiration to determine the guiding principles for the next generation phone interface. Sources included Swiss influenced print and packaging with its emphasis on simplicity, way-finding graphics found in transportation hubs and other Microsoft software such as Zune, Office Labs and games with a strong focus on motion and content over chrome.

Not only has the new design language enabled a unique and immersive experience for users of Windows Phone 7; it has also revitalized third party applications. The standards that have been developed for Metro provide a great baseline, for designers and developers alike. Those standards help them to create successful gesture-driven Windows Phone 7 experiences built for small devices.

 

(continued here)

After being first showcased at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona on February 15, 2010, the Windows Phone 7 with Metro on it was released to sales on October 21, 2010 in Europe and Australia and November 8, 2010 in the United States.

Saleswise, the Windows Phone 7 performed very poorly. As even an announcement of an update to Windows Phone 7.5 at the 2011 Mobile World Congressby Steve Ballmer didn't do anything to help things, the decision was made to force the Windows Phone UI on all desktop users with the next Windows version (Windows 8), if they want it or not.

They still took a good while to port the Windows Phone UI to the PC, but in August 2012 they were finally done and released Windows 8, featuring the Windows Phone UI "Metro". As the start menu had been removed, an integral part in all Windows versions since Windows 95 (and the most celebrated novelty back then), people were now indeed forced to use the Windows Phone UI on the desktop, even though Metro was never meant to be anything but a phone interface, and the mouse support was only very poorly done.

 

Most people didn't like to be forced to use a Windows Phone UI on the desktop. Windows 8 thus performed very poorly, even today standing back in popularity behind the already long discontinued Windows XP (Netmarketshare numbers for December 2014: Windows XP: 18.26%, Windows 8+8.1 together: 13.52%).

Microsoft needs to learn from their errors and remove Metro and tiles from the desktop entirely, as they have a very poor usability there and are totally out of place. Metro and tiles need to be kept exclusively to the one platform they were designed for: Windows Phone.

[Ian S.]

Metro was invented for Windows Phone 7 as a phone interface only.

Microsoft themselves say so in this toolbox article:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/design/toolbox/tutorials/windows-phone-7/metro/

(The above link isn't online anymore, but an archived copy can be found here.)

Metro Design Language of Windows Phone 7

 

Metro is the name of the new design language created for the Windows Phone 7 interface. When given the chance for a fresh start, the Windows Phone design team drew from many sources of inspiration to determine the guiding principles for the next generation phone interface. Sources included Swiss influenced print and packaging with its emphasis on simplicity, way-finding graphics found in transportation hubs and other Microsoft software such as Zune, Office Labs and games with a strong focus on motion and content over chrome.

Not only has the new design language enabled a unique and immersive experience for users of Windows Phone 7; it has also revitalized third party applications. The standards that have been developed for Metro provide a great baseline, for designers and developers alike. Those standards help them to create successful gesture-driven Windows Phone 7 experiences built for small devices.

 

(continued here)

After being first showcased at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona on February 15, 2010, the Windows Phone 7 with Metro on it was released to sales on October 21, 2010 in Europe and Australia and November 8, 2010 in the United States.

Saleswise, the Windows Phone 7 performed very poorly. As even an announcement of an update to Windows Phone 7.5 at the 2011 Mobile World Congressby Steve Ballmer didn't do anything to help things, the decision was made to force the Windows Phone UI on all desktop users with the next Windows version (Windows 8), if they want it or not.

They still took a good while to port the Windows Phone UI to the PC, but in August 2012 they were finally done and released Windows 8, featuring the Windows Phone UI "Metro". As the start menu had been removed, an integral part in all Windows versions since Windows 95 (and the most celebrated novelty back then), people were now indeed forced to use the Windows Phone UI on the desktop, even though Metro was never meant to be anything but a phone interface, and the mouse support was only very poorly done.

 

Most people didn't like to be forced to use a Windows Phone UI on the desktop. Windows 8 thus performed very poorly, even today standing back in popularity behind the already long discontinued Windows XP (Netmarketshare numbers for December 2014: Windows XP: 18.26%, Windows 8+8.1 together: 13.52%).

Microsoft needs to learn from their errors and remove Metro and tiles from the desktop entirely, as they have a very poor usability there and are totally out of place. Metro and tiles need to be kept exclusively to the one platform they were designed for: Windows Phone.

 

Metro, however, was first seen in Zune.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Metro, however, was first seen in Zune.

 

...and we see how well that turned out.  Just sayin.  

[onewarmslime]

QuoteNobody forced Windows 8 (or 8.1, for that matter) on you - you could have stayed put with Windows 7 (and most users that didn't upgrade their hardware did).

 

Just because I chose Windows 8 (I did buy a new machine but I'm not saying I had a problem with W8 being preinstalled) doesn't mean I have to find everything in it perfect. MS threw a lot of users (if not the majority) under the bus by not including the *option* of using a start menu, but I still think W8 is the best OS MS has made except maybe Windows 2000.

 

I'm just curious, what's your opinion on W10? Cause it'll also feature a start menu so by your standards it must suck right?

[BajiRav]

...and we see how well that turned out.  Just sayin.  

one of the best music player software along with one of the best MP3 players that people still lament about today?

 

metro wasn't Zune's problem, Microsoft's ######ed up execution.

[PGHammer]

Personally I'd rather get rid of it completely and let Microsoft develop their tablet OS separately but if they insist on keeping it in Windows I would personally prefer it if I could use my desktop without having to interact with a single piece of Metro crap.

Javik, you are basically insisting on complacency - knowing what has happened to IBM (the biggest example of it) - why?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

one of the best music player software along with one of the best MP3 players that people still lament about today?

 

metro wasn't Zune's problem, Microsoft's ######ed up execution.

 

No, it offered really nothing over Apple's products.  Point being, I wouldn't point to the now defunct Zune products as a glorious achievement...which it wasn't.  We already seen how Metro was received with Windows 8x...hopefully they can right the wrongs with 10.

[Kazama Levi]

No, it offered really nothing over Apple's products.  Point being, I wouldn't point to the now defunct Zune products as a glorious achievement...which it wasn't.  We already seen how Metro was received with Windows 8x...hopefully they can right the wrongs with 10.

 

Yes, they really need to fix up the mess they created with Metro in Windows 8. Having another immensely hated OS like Windows 8 just because of Metro junk would be very detrimental to them, and they would have a very, very hard time getting people to upgrade to Windows 10. That's why they need to give people a proper desktop UI again, not some Windows Phone junk like Metro which is a pain in the anus to use on the desktop.

[PGHammer]

Just because I chose Windows 8 (I did buy a new machine but I'm not saying I had a problem with W8 being preinstalled) doesn't mean I have to find everything in it perfect. MS threw a lot of users (if not the majority) under the bus by not including the *option* of using a start menu, but I still think W8 is the best OS MS has made except maybe Windows 2000.

 

I'm just curious, what's your opinion on W10? Cause it'll also feature a start menu so by your standards it must suck right?

Yes - I  had my issues with the Start menu - and I expected to not like mini-Start - I said as much in another post in this same forum.  However, the reasons I'm becoming a fan of it are all new features (or imports from elsewhere in Windows 8+) not because of it being anything like the original Start menu.  My hot feature in mini-Start is, in fact, a feature that the complacent among you despise - the live tiles (carryover from the StartScreen).  I like them in mini-Start for the same reason I like them in the StartScreen - at-a-glance notification of what is happening Right Now - and without opening a big memory-sapping application.  For me, live tiles replaced gadgets, and for the same reasons gadgets existed. (Gadgets, back with Longhorn, were designed to show live information at-a-glance without having to run a big bulky application needlessly.  They can either replace such an application, or run alongside it - which in any case is up to the developer.  The Notification Center takes a load off the Action Center (it is not meant to replace it) and has a separate TaskTray icon (and a tile dedicated to it). The Mail live tile ties in to mail applications (either the one included with Windows, or Outlook - in my case, it's Outlook), and lets me know if anything came in I need to deal with - otherwise, I'm perfectly free to ignore it.  (However, I can't use the excuse that I didn't know about it, as it logs when it told me, via popup - in a business environment, the Group Administrator gets those log files; so much for "The dog/cat/mouse ate my Inbox/mail folder/etc.")  10 is, when it gets down to brass tacks, an improved 8.1, and I love what they are doing with it.  What worries me is that there is still TONS of pressure from those that seek nothing less than a complete reversal of course  - they are looking for a return to Windows 7's level of things.  Whenever I hear that, I think immediately of IBM, and the failure of IBM regarding OS/2.  What separated Microsoft from IBM then is Microsoft's lack of complacency.  Microsoft is no more complacent now - if anything, it is even less complacent now than it was then - however, there are still those among Microsoft's customers that are MORE complacent now than they were then - how many of these same super-complacent customers were, in fact, originally customers of IBM?  (Some of these same companies, while arguing in favor of "extreme complacency" are among the FIRST to complain if the results of that same push turn out worse than expected - in other words, they are blaming Windows 8 for poor PC hardware sales when it has been, in fact, a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with Windows 8 at all for hardware sales being poor.

[PGHammer]

Yes, they really need to fix up the mess they created with Metro in Windows 8. Having another immensely hated OS like Windows 8 just because of Metro junk would be very detrimental to them, and they would have a very, very hard time getting people to upgrade to Windows 10. That's why they need to give people a proper desktop UI again, not some Windows Phone junk like Metro which is a pain in the anus to use on the desktop.

It still sounds to me that you are arguing in favor of complacency - right or wrong?

 

You are still basically saying that because Windows 8+ is different, folks didn't upgrade.  However, how is not changing anything an incentive to upgrade?  If nothing changes, why would ANYONE upgrade their software?  Individuals, businesses, etc., upgrade software due to improvements (changes in other words) - if there aren't any, they won't upgrade.  The same, naturally, applies to hardware.  From Vista forward, we have actually seen one of the slowest hardware-upgrade cycles in years - in terms of hardware requirements for Windows, from Vista forward, the requirements have been absolutely flat!  (No movement whatever, in other words.)  Given that, it's harder to squeeze improvements from a flat hardware base.  (In fact, ask Apple how easy it has been to squeeze improvements out of OS X over the same period - they are, in fact, in the same boat.)  This also looks like the same driver of that overlong overhang between XP and Vista, in fact - are you basically saying that Microsoft should have done nothing?  Doing nothing is no more an option for Microsoft than it was for Apple.  (Apple's changes may have been tiny, but they did change - they couldn't stand still, either.  And even Apple has been lambasted for what changes THEY have made, not only from Mavericks to Yosemite, but even from Lion to Mavericks, and from Mountain Lion to Lion.  That same argument in favor of lack of change is present, even at Apple.)

 

That's where I'm really curious - what is driving this overweening desire for complacency (and not just in terms of Windows)?

[Kazama Levi]

It still sounds to me that you are arguing in favor of complacency - right or wrong?

 

You are still basically saying that because Windows 8+ is different, folks didn't upgrade.  ...

 

Wrong, very wrong. This has nothing to do with complacency whatsoever. This has nothing to do with just being different either. Being different isn't a bad thing. When the start menu was first introduced with Windows 95, it was also very different, but it was very well thought through and a great step forward in terms of usability.

 

This has however everything to do with them forcing a Windows Phone UI (Metro) on the desktop, where it's a pain in the anus to use, and even forcing people to use it without giving them the alternative to use a regular desktop/start menu instead, as they had removed the start menu.

Most people hated to be forced to use a Windows Phone UI on the desktop, resulting in an immensely degraded usability for desktop users, which is the main reason they didn't upgrade.

 

MS needs to clean up the mess they created by bringing Metro on the desktop (for which it was never meant to be used when it was invented, anyway). They need to bring desktop users a proper desktop UI again by removing any remaining scourges of Metro and tiles from the desktop, limiting those to Windows Phone, the only platform where they belong.

[chrisj1968]

It's time to go all modern. The 1990's were over 20 years ago, computers have changed, and so have the user habits. It's time to face the facts, and update the pieces of Windows that have been left to sit since then to scalable, modern equivalents, and decommission what doesn't belong anymore. People aren't bound by traditional desktops anymore.

 

Start is receiving a great upgrade, along with the Control Panel being decommissioned. Now it's time to start looking at upgrading the taskbar, and the old static icons that still populate Windows to something that'll be a bit more productive.

 

Not all user habits. I have a new gamer laptop, top end model and no touchscreen capabilities. not everyone works as you do. some still need a mouse for navigating their respective UI.

[PGHammer]

Wrong, very wrong. This has nothing to do with complacency whatsoever. This has nothing to do with just being different either. Being different isn't a bad thing. When the start menu was first introduced with Windows 95, it was also very different, but it was very well thought through and a great step forward in terms of usability.

 

This has however everything to do with them forcing a Windows Phone UI (Metro) on the desktop, where it's a pain in the anus to use, and even forcing people to use it without giving them the alternative to use a regular desktop/start menu instead, as they had removed the start menu.

Most people hated to be forced to use a Windows Phone UI on the desktop, resulting in an immensely degraded usability for desktop users, which is the main reason they didn't upgrade.

 

MS needs to clean up the mess they created by bringing Metro on the desktop (for which it was never meant to be used when it was invented, anyway). They need to bring desktop users a proper desktop UI again by removing any remaining scourges of Metro and tiles from the desktop, limiting those to Windows Phone, the only platform where they belong.

If it has everything to do with UI changes, it sure sounds like it IS an argument for "staying put" (as you yourself put it).  I'm a keyboard+mouse user - what makes me different from you is that I am not so Start menu driven - that's pretty much it.  As was the case with the introduction OF the Start menu - without alternatives that are easily accessible, why would folks use them?  As I further pointed out, while Program Manager was not killed outright, it was buried so deeply that it was not exactly easily accessible.  (That has been, in fact, rather thoroughly documented, and not just by me - though I was there, and have, in fact, commented on it.)  The hatred of MDL is not as vociferous as you want to claim, either - MDL is present in a lot of places that have nothing to do with Windows 8 - there are elements of MDL in Steam's latest update.  MDL is not JUST about touch - though it is, undeniably, more touch-friendly than the Windows 7 UI.  I don't have any touch-support in my hardware at all - however, I find MDL friendlier to me - not just with a trackpad, but with a mouse.  Why is that considered "weird" and an "outlier"?  And you DO realize you have called the majority of keyboard+mouse users change-averse - which I certainly didn't do (though I have said that not all users could appreciate the changes).  Further, you are claiming that ModernUI is a pain to use entirely due to its differences - basically that the only acceptable change is, in fact, none.  If that isn't being deliberately change-averse, what is?