Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[George P Global Moderator]

Any DirectX stuff not working well, like DirectDraw, might be because they're between v11 and v12, no DX12 drivers for Windows 10 out either.

 

People who get a FPS boost in games right now could be benefiting from early CPU overhead reductions, that's the key to better frame rates.

[Defcon]

They should switch all desktop apps to use modern Metro chrome, then it makes sense to show a Metro style dialog on the desktop. Otherwise its just inconsistent UI.

[Deihmos]

xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:

What are these killer apps that everybody keeps mentioning?  What are these MUST HAVES that do NOT exist in the desktop environment?  I am pretty sure I can use Facebook without needing a Facebook app.  I can use Netflix with a browser.  

 

Again, what is this stall you are referring to?  Even comparing Photoshop CS2 to CC has a huge change in features.  What modern app exists that does NOT exist on the desktop that is OMG SO AMAZING?  Even Angry Birds is on Steam.  Some of the most popular mobile apps are on Steam.  Better games are on Steam and the PC platform.  So how are things "stalled"?  

Netflix in a browser can't give you surround sound. At least the Windows 8 app can produce Dolby Digital 5.1 Plus.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

They should switch all desktop apps to use modern Metro chrome, then it makes sense to show a Metro style dialog on the desktop. Otherwise its just inconsistent UI.

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

[PGHammer]

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

[Knife Party]

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

[PGHammer]

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

[Guest]

NEXTCubes

 

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost seem to) be happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

 

Also, if the goalposts weren't moved, wouldn't we just end up with Windows 8.1 again? 

[PGHammer]

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost be) happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

But is it worth the resultant damage to the Windows marketshare to get it?

 

As much as you (and a few others) want a consistent UI/UX, the marketplace seems to disagree.

 

Where Windows HAS been consistent is in niche-OS areas (including RT, for that matter), and niche-only operating systems don't succeed commercially.

 

If anything, a major desktop OS needs SOME inconsistency for it to actually work.

 

OS X (the descendant of NEXTstep) has a non-consistent UI included with it - it's called Launchpad.  It looks nothing like the default OS X UI - yet you can, in fact, do darn near everything from there that you can from the default UI.  Could Launchpad be the ModernUI of OS X?  (In fact, the only difference between Launchpad and ModernUI is that the core OS functionality is NOT duplicated there - yet, and that it actually predates ModernUI - Launchpad goes back to SnowLeopard.)

 

Another reason for the "consistency" of the OS X default UI is that both it, and the hardware, are from the same company - Apple.  Apple is, by and large, made up of the folks that WROTE NEXTstep (which, toward the end, was indeed available for standard x86 PCs - albeit at Apple-sized mark-ups) - that is the version that can run on VirtualBox or VMware today.  Basically, OS X is a semi-closed OS (despite the BSD underpinnings).

 

Other than Surface, Microsoft doesn't make entire computers.  Instead, it is licensed to companies that do (from the Lenovos to the boutique and home-builder/BYOPC crowd).  Designs run the gamut.  If anything, consistency is something that PCs are known for NOT having - in terms of either hardware OR software.  In other words, the lack of consistency works in its favor - it gets licensed, sold, and used because it is NOT a straitjacket-OS.

 

Also, who is settling?  If we wanted to settle, there WOULD have been a hardware stall with 7 - however, that did NOT happen - far from it.

The issue is not just where do we go from a hardware POV, but where do we go from an application POV?

 

I'm in FAVOR of greater choice in applications - including ModernUI (both Win32 and even WinRT) applications.  I don't want either/or.

The issue I am facing with that is that the same folks arguing for consistency are also arguing in favor of complacency - not only in terms of OS, but in terms of hardware support.

If getting the complacency issue scuttled means dumping consistency (which Windows hasn't had since 3.x), I'm fine with that - especially given the Microsoft track record with consistent operating systems.

[tompkin]

Back to the original question in the title, My view is that Microsoft is indeed ignoring the desktop. Why? Because if you look at the development frameworks that were used in the past for the desktop (Win Forms, Silverlight, WPF), they are either gone or pretty much in maintenance mode. They have already said that there are no new frameworks in the works. HTML5/Javascript/Xamarin are "where it's at" now and that's not the desktop.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

_{Getting back on topic, it seems to me that the opposite it true. Microsoft seems to be focusing quite a bit on the desktop and fixing 8.x's shortcomings. I think they were brilliant in making it automatically change when you use a tablet or desktop. I was actually in the minority that liked the Metro screen but now that the start menu is back and with Metro tiles, I really like it.}

 

_{My main issue is that MS cannot make a consistent UI. Ugly as it may be, I hope they make everything have the same windows graphics. However, I do wish they would give an option for more of a visually appealing style. And I don't want to use Windowblinds, I always thought that felt like a hack. Even though they have stepped back about 20 years with the ugly icon design, they need to make all of them have the same style. I'm sure that is a work in progress though like everything else. I also noticed that when I click the Cortana search field, a different style field displays above it offset a bit. it gives me the impression that they are just sticking new interface elements on top of old ones. Why can't they just make a single unified UI without feeling everything is skinned.}

 

_{Also, I hate how their is a settings start menu item and then there is still a control panel. I really hope they do away with the control panel. It makes it confusing to try and figure out when to use Settings and when to use Control Panel.}

[NEVER85]

What are people talking about regarding the desktop and customization not being a thing anymore? I run Win8.1 and my desktop is as customized as it's ever been.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I don't really think they are. I think that they're trying to unify both the tablet world and the desktop world, personally. Don't flame me for this, but on the desktop aspect, you're getting the best of both worlds, IMHO. Minus the touch aspect. Unless you're on a touch screen monitor. Look, you can't make everybody happy. Nobody can. But can you find a medium? Absolutely. Example: I like pizza. Especially home made pizza. It's good. (That's my fifty percent). However, I also like it when I don't have to make a huge mess making pizza, which is why I'm equally happy to call pizza hut. (The other fifty percent). It's an equal balance. At least for me. I'm just happy I have pizza, either way, when it comes down to it. Microsoft knows what they're doing by us tech preview users. I've beta tested for years, it's just that they finally decided to let more people in, and express their own opinions. Which I think, is good. So it's ok to think the way you do, OP. Variety is the spice of life!  They'll get it right, and everything will be okay. Don't worry. It's a community effort, just like neowin started out as, and has flourished to be. Don't let the trees get in the way of the forest.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

What are people talking about regarding the desktop and customization not being a thing anymore? I run Win8.1 and my desktop is as customized as it's ever been.

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

[tompkin]

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!!

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!!

 

LOL.  

 

[timbo_sf2]

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!!

 

LOL.  

 

Windows 2 also introduce overlapping windows like in windows 7.

Actually I love these tiles (Windows 8), because it looks fresh for me.

Probably most people hate tiles because that is what they see as opposed of start menu in Windows 8

[ParadiseLost]

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

Ask Windows 8.

[Knife Party]

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Ask Windows 8.

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

[timbo_sf2]

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

I don't think so. I believe some people like the clean look of Windows 8 or some people who don't care about UX at all, what distract them from Windows 8 is confusing (like PC Settings, start menu replacement, and flyout menu), hence there are some downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7. My friend love windows 8, especially on touchscreen, but he decided to downgrade to windows 7 because he don't understand windows 8 (he gives up when he saw start screen)

[Knife Party]

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

exactly!

[+Fahim S. MVC]

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

 

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

[Guest]

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

 

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

 

It certainly would not hurt to have consistency. I don't think that there is any debate on the subject, and doubt very much that Microsoft themselves would debate the subject.

 

The question is if there can't be complete consistency, should we not move forward at all?

[PGHammer]

Ask Windows 8.

Windows 8 wasn't tossed because the UI wasn't consistent - Windows 7 didn't have a consistent UI, either.  Windows 8 was launched in a bad economy - which is a far easier wall to avoid. (The best evidence of that is sales of PCs since the current recovery began.  PCs - from traditional desktops and portables to non-traditional desktops and portables - are selling again.  By and large, it is NOT 7 that is on them - instead, it's 8.1 - which STILL lacks a Start menu - or a consistent UI.)