Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[zhangm Supervisor]

Thread cleaned. Please discuss maturely.

[Dot Matrix]

Windows on ARM, a.k.a. what you're calling "RT" did support Win32. MS Office wouldn't run on it if it didn't.

Windows on ARM had an ARM based version of Office. It was not the Win32 counterpart. ARM does not run Win32 apps.

[Noir Angel]

In short, you are basically ignoring the evidence of the hardware base?

 

Windows was already LAGGING the hardware base with merely 7  - I even pointed out how.

 

If anything, catering to the laggards would have made that even worse - which is already something that non-enterprise customers have been lambasting Microsoft for (in terms of Windows) since XP.

 

And the very reason WHY all the other companies (including the competition) isn't doing it is why Microsoft's decision TO do it makes sense - they want no part of confronting Microsoft heads-up, whether their OSes can or not.  (I can't do ANYTHING about competition that basically refuses to compete - ask the competition why they won't.)

 

I have been pointing out - right here in this subforum - that Android could compete heads-up with Windows - and right now.  (Heck, Chrome OS could.)  Ask Google why they won't go there.

iOS IS taking sales away from Macs -Apple ADMITS this.  Still, for some reason, they refuse to compete heads-up with even Android, let alone Windows - instead, they stayed in their niches and avoided both.

 

The question should be asked of Apple and Google - why are you avoiding Microsoft (let alone each other)?

 

There is no evidence of the "hardware base", the majority of the hardware base Windows is used on does not need touch features, those are only necessary on touch devices. Windows 7 worked perfectly on desktop computers, there was no gap in features,

[PGHammer]

There is no evidence of the "hardware base", the majority of the hardware base Windows is used on does not need touch features, those are only necessary on touch devices. Windows 7 worked perfectly on desktop computers, there was no gap in features,

Then why did touch start appearing in Windows 7 PCs, then?

 

I'm not talking merely tablets (or the first Ultrabooks and 2-in-1s), but desktops - both AIO and non-AIO alike.  (You may want to dismiss HP and Dell - and their touch-screen hardware that came out with 7, but why would you want to dismiss Lenovo?)

Also, I pointed out why desktop support was NOT broken with 8 - is it MY fault that so many folks insisted on a Start menu or alternative thereto (which was, and still is, available)?  I don't HAVE touch support - yet I can, and do, use desktop software in 8.1 (and now the 10 Technical Previews) just fine.  So if desktop hardware support, and desktop application support, is provably not broken, does your entire rant revolve around the lack of Start menu (which is fixable in merely 8 alone)?

 

I have a nasty suspicion that the REAL issue is that - once again - Microsoft is refusing to keep Windows in that desktop-only cage that you (and a few others) have wanted it to stay in - it made Windows FAR easier to avoid.  If Windows were supposedly as desktop-hostile as you claimed, I couldn't have taken one hundred percent (other than three utilities) of my desktop applications and games to 8, and all except three games (and all those SAME desktop applications) to the 10 Technical Previews - it would have been, in fact, impossible.  I don't HAVE any touch-screen support on either my desktop - or my notebook. Yet I have not a problem using Windows 8.1 today - or the Windows 10 Technical Preview today.

 

Also, touch-first need NOT mean touch-only - in fact, it has never been true.  Not only has it never been true of Windows 8+, it's never even been true of Android - or iOS, for that matter.  (You all know it - I don't believe any of you are THAT clueless.)  (That is, in fact, my biggest point as to how Android can compete - heads-up - with Windows today, if Google were serious - and not JUST that Microsoft is, in fact, bringing most of Office to Android - all except Outlook and Access are available via Google Play - and free - right now.)

 

And I have another anecdote for you - one of more recent vintage; what about the fact - not fiction - that the Office "touch first" applications are, in fact, just as usable without it?  In other words - no touch, no problem.  In other words, in reality, Office no more requires touch - on either Windows or Android or iOS - than the respective OSes do.

 

"Use it how you want to" is quite real - as much as you despise the idea.  And there is no unringing that bell.

[sinetheo]

Defcon, on 21 Jan 2015 - 14:50, said:

Vista -> Win 7 - huge architectural changes, lots of improvement to file system, kernel, lower layers, changes to Explorer, desktop

Win 7 -> Win 8 - again major changes (even if you ignore Metro), new task manager, kernel hibernation, File history, MS account

 

But so far, everything about Windows 10 is focused on Continuum, mobile etc. The only new thing on the desktop is the revamped start menu and virtual desktops, Cortana. It's the same desktop, same Explorer, same internals, just a few color and icon tweaks. There has been no information about what's actually new underneath or how its better.

 

It's now been 2 public announcements and they haven't talked about a single engineering feature except DX12.

 

Win 7= Vista SP 3.

[HawkMan]

Win 7= Vista SP 3.

 

smh...

[PGHammer]

I am just wondering why is this thread keep going. If anything everyone explained Windows 10 is all about the desktop. And now you are discussing windows hardware. Way I see it this turn to "I hate windows" conversation and is no longer relevant to the original post.

Desperation.  (Yes - I'm quite serious.)

 

There are some folks that insist on control-method purity/exclusivity because that is what they are used to.  The desktop PC is, literally, the last gasp for control-method purity.  (In this case, I am indeed referring specifically to desktop-formfactor PCs - not AIOs, laptops, OR notebooks - all of which have touch-screen variants available at "everyday" pricing.)

 

If Windows 8+ succeeds, then only OS X won't be available on hardware that supports touch directly. (Note that OS X can - and has been proven to, in fact - support touch-screen and similar technologies in the OS itself - in fact, the Leap Motion controller supports OS X today.)

 

It's CLI vs. GUI (or even mainframe vs. PC) all over again - the new technology is looked at with a rather large amount of dread.  Could it be that they haven't learned how to "swim" (get around to at least SOME degree on a touch-screen)?

 

Never mind that every touch-screen AIO I have seen STILL includes a keyboard and a mouse - without exception.

Never mind that both Android and iOS still support keyboards and mice.

 

How close did I get with an earlier comment about the Civil Right Act (implementation vs. practice)?

[sinetheo]

PGHammer, on 13 Feb 2015 - 21:09, said:

Desperation.  (Yes - I'm quite serious.)

 

There are some folks that insist on control-method purity/exclusivity because that is what they are used to.  The desktop PC is, literally, the last gasp for control-method purity.  (In this case, I am indeed referring specifically to desktop-formfactor PCs - not AIOs, laptops, OR notebooks - all of which have touch-screen variants available at "everyday" pricing.)

 

If Windows 8+ succeeds, then only OS X won't be available on hardware that supports touch directly. (Note that OS X can - and has been proven to, in fact - support touch-screen and similar technologies in the OS itself - in fact, the Leap Motion controller supports OS X today.)

 

It's CLI vs. GUI (or even mainframe vs. PC) all over again - the new technology is looked at with a rather large amount of dread.  Could it be that they haven't learned how to "swim" (get around to at least SOME degree on a touch-screen)?

 

Never mind that every touch-screen AIO I have seen STILL includes a keyboard and a mouse - without exception.

Never mind that both Android and iOS still support keyboards and mice.

 

How close did I get with an earlier comment about the Civil Right Act (implementation vs. practice)?

 

Some like me love Windows 7 and feel upset MS is abandoning us like the smaller XP base with their favorite OS.

 

But we feel frustrated at Win 10 as well. A big improvement over 8.1 but it is certainly not an Xp or Windows 7 in its current iteration and we feel frustrated MS is going to freeze it in less than 90 days to meet its freaking June 1st deadline! Windows 7 at this time in 2009 was already better and more stable than Vista.

 

I hate using an older OS but I am still waiting for an operating as good as Win 7. I also left my father at IOS 6 with his IPAD as this was the best OS for his Ipad 2 and Apple can't produce something that is as bug free and not confusing (lack of buttons and anti skuemorphism garbage that also infects Windows 8). 2009 was when software was good and it all went downhill from there.

 

MacOSX snow leopard and Windows 7 were the most reliable and had beautiful and detailed icons with skuemporphic and eye candy and looked pleasing. Change for the sake of change is killing innovation FAST!

[nosense]

Some like me love Windows 7 and feel upset MS is abandoning us like the smaller XP base with their favorite OS.

 

But we feel frustrated at Win 10 as well. A big improvement over 8.1 but it is certainly not an Xp or Windows 7 in its current iteration and we feel frustrated MS is going to freeze it in less than 90 days to meet its freaking June 1st deadline! Windows 7 at this time in 2009 was already better and more stable than Vista.

 

I hate using an older OS but I am still waiting for an operating as good as Win 7. I also left my father at IOS 6 with his IPAD as this was the best OS for his Ipad 2 and Apple can't produce something that is as bug free and not confusing (lack of buttons and anti skuemorphism garbage that also infects Windows 8). 2009 was when software was good and it all went downhill from there.

 

MacOSX snow leopard and Windows 7 were the most reliable and had beautiful and detailed icons with skuemporphic and eye candy and looked pleasing. Change for the sake of change is killing innovation FAST!

I don't get this june first dead line business, because neowin said so with out any source..

[Dot Matrix]

Some like me love Windows 7 and feel upset MS is abandoning us like the smaller XP base with their favorite OS.

 

But we feel frustrated at Win 10 as well. A big improvement over 8.1 but it is certainly not an Xp or Windows 7 in its current iteration and we feel frustrated MS is going to freeze it in less than 90 days to meet its freaking June 1st deadline! Windows 7 at this time in 2009 was already better and more stable than Vista.

 

I hate using an older OS but I am still waiting for an operating as good as Win 7. I also left my father at IOS 6 with his IPAD as this was the best OS for his Ipad 2 and Apple can't produce something that is as bug free and not confusing (lack of buttons and anti skuemorphism garbage that also infects Windows 8). 2009 was when software was good and it all went downhill from there.

 

MacOSX snow leopard and Windows 7 were the most reliable and had beautiful and detailed icons with skuemporphic and eye candy and looked pleasing. Change for the sake of change is killing innovation FAST!

Windows 7 has run its course. It was built, and developed in a world where tabs and smartphones were just a gleam in people's eyes. Don't even get me started on XP.

 

Windows 10 has been feature "complete" for some time. The feature set Microsoft has shown off in various builds are all coming together internally, and now it's time to smooth the jaggies, and add any last minute additions/feedback. Keep in mind the builds we have are a few months old at this point, having been built right before, or right after Christmas. Again, this isn't change for the sake of change, desktops aren't the machines they once were. They have their niche, but people want mobility more than anything. Laptops, tabs, and smartphones are the biggest devices on the market today, and that's where Microsoft is moving to with Windows. There's nothing in the rule book stating a responsive OS can't be built for these devices.

[sinetheo]

Dot Matrix, on 13 Feb 2015 - 22:18, said:

Windows 7 has run its course. It was built, and developed in a world where tabs and smartphones were just a gleam in people's eyes. Don't even get me started on XP.

 

Windows 10 has been feature "complete" for some time. The feature set Microsoft has shown off in various builds are all coming together internally, and now it's time to smooth the jaggies, and add any last minute additions/feedback. Keep in mind the builds we have are a few months old at this point, having been built right before, or right after Christmas. Again, this isn't change for the sake of change, desktops aren't the machines they once were. They have their niche, but people want mobility more than anything. Laptops, tabs, and smartphones are the biggest devices on the market today, and that's where Microsoft is moving to with Windows. There's nothing in the rule book stating a responsive OS can't be built for these devices.

 

I hope you are right and I am wrong. We shall wait and see.

 

Windows 7 has not run its course yet as it runs on over 50% of all computers still. If Windows 10, 10.1, 10.2 if MS is correct will offer a lifetime of support will be like MacOSX versions with yearly updates for the consumer in the fast ring and evens or odds in the slow ring for corporations who need to test their apps before doing a push via SCCM.

 

I feel since using Agile software development for rapid releases products including operating systems have gone downhill. Firefox went to hell after 4.0 hit and rapid releases via agile software development made it very buggy with extensions breaking every few weeks. Apple's Lion and IOS releases are TERRIBLE after snow leopard and IOS 6 and are rushed. Yosemite tried to fix a few things but it has wireless issues galore where each patch fixes one router another breaks.

 

I like slow releases of several years as they seem more stable. It seems like a rush as eager as Microsoft is to have a new RTM every June for what is in Windows 10. Lots of changes and not minor updates. Spartan, DirectX, universal apps api, are all brand new or rewrites.

 

I do know you have to disable 3d acceleration on Windows 10 just to get it to resize guest on VMware Workstation I run at home. My point is Windows 7 at this stage was more ready. Windows XP was buggy and it took SP1 before it became somewhat stable and SP 2 before it was really solid which were both a year and 3 years off. That is a very long time if the same is true to prepare Window 10.

[Kazama Levi]

Desperation.  (Yes - I'm quite serious.)

 

Actually... Yes. For once, I have to say that hits the nail on the head.

Metro was born out of desperation. Microsoft was desperate that they were totally behind the game with phones and tablets. So they locked up some designers in the basement, and after some massive abuse of illegal substances, those designers came up with Metro.

Metro was put on their Zune first in 2006, which was an abysmal failure and never could even get remotely close to the iPod.

 

More desperation.

 

Zune isn't big enough, let's put Metro on an actual phone - the Windows Phone. Likewise, the Windows Phone failed horribly, and sales numbers stayed ridiculously low. A major update, Mango 7.5, didn't help anything.

 

Desperation reached a new all-time high.

 

Following the maxime "Desperate times require desperate means", Microsoft decided to force all desktop users to use their Windows Phone Metro UI on the desktop, without alternatives, without the possibility to go back to the way they used to work. It's "Eat metro or die." Their rationale behind this was, if people are forced to use Metro on the desktop,with no alternatives, they will want to use it on the phone as well, and Windows Phone sales would explode. The reality was (and still is) quite different from this pipe dream. Not only didn't this help at all to boost Windows Phone sales, still lumbering at 3% up to this day, but now the desktop, the Metro-ized Windows 8, turned out to be a dismal failure as well - thanks to Metro.

 

Yet more desperation abounds.

 

Microsoft rows back a little in Windows 8.1 and takes back a little of the Metro stuff. It doesn't help much, and Windows 8 can only move from "horribly unpopular" to "massively unpopular". To this day, usage of Windows 8+8.1 is only at 13% (while XP is still at 18% and Win 7 is at 56%).

 

Microsoft is rotating with desperation.

 

The decision is made to distance themselves as much as possible from the horrible failure of Windows 8, skip over Windows 9 and name the next Windows no. 10. They also decide to take out some Metro stuff and do a better desktop again. However, since it's Microsoft and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, others decided that they want more Metro instead of less. Thus we now get more Metro-ized apps, system apps get more Metro-ized (e.g. monster-sized calculator, PC settings all over the place), and some of the previous changes got reverted (e.g. non-resizable humongous start menu, which isn't much different from the start screen anymore).

 

Microsoft really needs to get their act together. They urgently need to flush Metro down the toilet, because everything that Metro touched (be it Zune, the Windows Phone or the desktop) turned into an abysmal failure. Yet they are too boneheaded or just too inept to own up to their faillure and either innovate and come up with something completely new that isn't an abysmal failure like Metro, or if they can't do that, go back to what worked fine with Windows 7.

 

At this rate, if Microsoft should prove too complacent and too resistant to change and boneheadedly cling to the massive failure that is Metro, which has only got them nothing but abysmal failures multiple times in a row already, they'll just shoot themselves in the foot and may very well end up with a second failure like Windows 8. They need to wake up from their complacency and their Metro pipe dream, face the reality that Metro has got them nothing but huge failures and come up with something completely new, which has nothing to do with Metro. In the meantime, they could go back to what has worked well with Windows 7, just to tide them over. Stolidly clinging to Metro, which has just proven time and time again to perform abhorrently bad, will just steer them right into the next disaster.

[sinetheo]

Kazama Levi, on 14 Feb 2015 - 22:43, said:

Actually... Yes. For once, I have to say that hits the nail on the head.

Metro was born out of desperation. Microsoft was desperate that they were totally behind the game with phones and tablets. So they locked up some designers in the basement, and after some massive abuse of illegal substances, those designers came up with Metro.

Metro was put on their Zune first in 2006, which was an abysmal failure and never could even get remotely close to the iPod.

 

More desperation.

 

Zune isn't big enough, let's put Metro on an actual phone - the Windows Phone. Likewise, the Windows Phone failed horribly, and sales numbers stayed ridiculously low. A major update, Mango 7.5, didn't help anything.

 

Desperation reached a new all-time high.

 

Following the maxime "Desperate times require desperate means", Microsoft decided to force all desktop users to use their Windows Phone Metro UI on the desktop, without alternatives, without the possibility to go back to the way they used to work. It's "Eat metro or die." Their rationale behind this was, if people are forced to use Metro on the desktop,with no alternatives, they will want to use it on the phone as well, and Windows Phone sales would explode. The reality was (and still is) quite different from this pipe dream. Not only didn't this help at all to boost Windows Phone sales, still lumbering at 3% up to this day, but now the desktop, the Metro-ized Windows 8, turned out to be a dismal failure as well - thanks to Metro.

 

Yet more desperation abounds.

 

Microsoft rows back a little in Windows 8.1 and takes back a little of the Metro stuff. It doesn't help much, and Windows 8 can only move from "horribly unpopular" to "massively unpopular". To this day, usage of Windows 8+8.1 is only at 13% (while XP is still at 18% and Win 7 is at 56%).

 

Microsoft is rotating with desperation.

 

The decision is made to distance themselves as much as possible from the horrible failure of Windows 8, skip over Windows 9 and name the next Windows no. 10. They also decide to take out some Metro stuff and do a better desktop again. However, since it's Microsoft and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, others decided that they want more Metro instead of less. Thus we now get more Metro-ized apps, system apps get more Metro-ized (e.g. monster-sized calculator, PC settings all over the place), and some of the previous changes got reverted (e.g. non-resizable humongous start menu, which isn't much different from the start screen anymore).

 

Microsoft really needs to get their act together. They urgently need to flush Metro down the toilet, because everything that Metro touched (be it Zune, the Windows Phone or the desktop) turned into an abysmal failure. Yet they are too boneheaded or just too inept to own up to their faillure and either innovate and come up with something completely new that isn't an abysmal failure like Metro, or if they can't do that, go back to what worked fine with Windows 7.

 

At this rate, if Microsoft should prove too complacent and too resistant to change and boneheadedly cling to the massive failure that is Metro, which has only got them nothing but abysmal failures multiple times in a row already, they'll just shoot themselves in the foot and may very well end up with a second failure like Windows 8. They need to wake up from their complacency and their Metro pipe dream, face the reality that Metro has got them nothing but huge failures and come up with something completely new, which has nothing to do with Metro. In the meantime, they could go back to what has worked well with Windows 7, just to tide them over. Stolidly clinging to Metro, which has just proven time and time again to perform abhorrently bad, will just steer them right into the next disaster.

 

 

Not to disagree with your assertions and points at all. But if they go back to boring win32 desktops and win 7 UI then why should I upgrade? How would they make more money?

 

Yes Windows missed the bus with the IPhone and now Android from a 90% smart phone market share with WinCE.

 

Android is improving and adding features for mobile that benefit everyone. What will MS do as the desktop is done with Windows 7? Can there be improvements with applets aka modern/metro apps in the mix? I am not talking about a cell phone on my desktop which is what 8 is. I am talking about a UI that can work on the desktop but have mobile like enchancements and app support too?

 

MS is in a bind here. FYI I owned a Nokia before going to a Galaxy S5. Windows Phone is a really good OS. It just didn't have the apps :-(

 

It was faster, slimmer, and much more bug free and predictable than Android from someone who ran both. But it was time to move on. If I could run universal apps and had google cards and Google now like functionality with Cortana with loads of apps I would still use it.

[PGHammer]

Actually... Yes. For once, I have to say that hits the nail on the head.

Metro was born out of desperation. Microsoft was desperate that they were totally behind the game with phones and tablets. So they locked up some designers in the basement, and after some massive abuse of illegal substances, those designers came up with Metro.

Metro was put on their Zune first in 2006, which was an abysmal failure and never could even get remotely close to the iPod.

 

More desperation.

 

Zune isn't big enough, let's put Metro on an actual phone - the Windows Phone. Likewise, the Windows Phone failed horribly, and sales numbers stayed ridiculously low. A major update, Mango 7.5, didn't help anything.

 

Desperation reached a new all-time high.

 

Following the maxime "Desperate times require desperate means", Microsoft decided to force all desktop users to use their Windows Phone Metro UI on the desktop, without alternatives, without the possibility to go back to the way they used to work. It's "Eat metro or die." Their rationale behind this was, if people are forced to use Metro on the desktop,with no alternatives, they will want to use it on the phone as well, and Windows Phone sales would explode. The reality was (and still is) quite different from this pipe dream. Not only didn't this help at all to boost Windows Phone sales, still lumbering at 3% up to this day, but now the desktop, the Metro-ized Windows 8, turned out to be a dismal failure as well - thanks to Metro.

 

Yet more desperation abounds.

 

Microsoft rows back a little in Windows 8.1 and takes back a little of the Metro stuff. It doesn't help much, and Windows 8 can only move from "horribly unpopular" to "massively unpopular". To this day, usage of Windows 8+8.1 is only at 13% (while XP is still at 18% and Win 7 is at 56%).

 

Microsoft is rotating with desperation.

 

The decision is made to distance themselves as much as possible from the horrible failure of Windows 8, skip over Windows 9 and name the next Windows no. 10. They also decide to take out some Metro stuff and do a better desktop again. However, since it's Microsoft and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, others decided that they want more Metro instead of less. Thus we now get more Metro-ized apps, system apps get more Metro-ized (e.g. monster-sized calculator, PC settings all over the place), and some of the previous changes got reverted (e.g. non-resizable humongous start menu, which isn't much different from the start screen anymore).

 

Microsoft really needs to get their act together. They urgently need to flush Metro down the toilet, because everything that Metro touched (be it Zune, the Windows Phone or the desktop) turned into an abysmal failure. Yet they are too boneheaded or just too inept to own up to their faillure and either innovate and come up with something completely new that isn't an abysmal failure like Metro, or if they can't do that, go back to what worked fine with Windows 7.

 

At this rate, if Microsoft should prove too complacent and too resistant to change and boneheadedly cling to the massive failure that is Metro, which has only got them nothing but abysmal failures multiple times in a row already, they'll just shoot themselves in the foot and may very well end up with a second failure like Windows 8. They need to wake up from their complacency and their Metro pipe dream, face the reality that Metro has got them nothing but huge failures and come up with something completely new, which has nothing to do with Metro. In the meantime, they could go back to what has worked well with Windows 7, just to tide them over. Stolidly clinging to Metro, which has just proven time and time again to perform abhorrently bad, will just steer them right into the next disaster.

Please - are you that willing to stay put and not move?

 

Or are you simply looking for a reason to leave Windows and adopt another OS - and a stalled Microsoft (not a Microsoft that is quite willing to adapt and change) gives you the impetus?

 

Part of the problem is that nobody sees ANY reason to move beyond what Windows has offered on the desktop since 7 except those willing to move beyond it - you, on the other hand, are apparently quite content to stay put.

 

If Microsoft does what you want, why would you upgrade beyond Windows 7 at all?

 

Besides, in what way - merely with the Windows 10 Technical Preview - have desktop applications failed to work?

 

You have been implying and implying that desktop applications are broken - where is the evidence of that?

 

If desktop application performance were as broken as you claim, how is it that I took all my desktop software with me - first to 8, and then to 10?

 

I couldn't have done it were your claim true.  Not any of it - let alone ALL of it.

 

If anyone is complacent, it is those that insist on single-method interaction with the desktop.

 

An OS that doesn't move will soon die.

[sinetheo]

PGHammer, on 14 Feb 2015 - 23:36, said:

Please - are you that willing to stay put and not move?

 

Or are you simply looking for a reason to leave Windows and adopt another OS - and a stalled Microsoft (not a Microsoft that is quite willing to adapt and change) gives you the impetus?

 

Part of the problem is that nobody sees ANY reason to move beyond what Windows has offered on the desktop since 7 except those willing to move beyond it - you, on the other hand, are apparently quite content to stay put.

 

If Microsoft does what you want, why would you upgrade beyond Windows 7 at all?

 

Besides, in what way - merely with the Windows 10 Technical Preview - have desktop applications failed to work?

 

You have been implying and implying that desktop applications are broken - where is the evidence of that?

 

If desktop application performance were as broken as you claim, how is it that I took all my desktop software with me - first to 8, and then to 10?

 

I couldn't have done it were your claim true.  Not any of it - let alone ALL of it.

 

If anyone is complacent, it is those that insist on single-method interaction with the desktop.

 

An OS that doesn't move will soon die.

 

Yeah a move in the wrong direction. Makes such logical sense since MS owns a monopoly on the phone market but nearly 0 on the desktop market right?

 

I was just listing to some music from around 2009 and it gave me found memories of skuemorphism of WIndows 7 and its beautiful gradients. ... ok I am exgerating that part.

 

But I was just adding some themes to Windows 7 tonight and I have to say it is so gorgeous with its shadows, glass, and consistency. I should start a poll for Win 7 loyalists on favorite skuemorphic features? Best looking OS ever and still waiting for an operating system that is as stable and reliable.

 

Windows 10 maybe it some day but not today.

 

Until Microsoft returns to its roots with Windows 7 with aero, shadows, gradients, and sanity I am sticking with Windows 7 like the rest of us on that and still Windows XP.

[nosense]

Yeah a move in the wrong direction. Makes such logical sense since MS owns a monopoly on the phone market but nearly 0 on the desktop market right?

 

I was just listing to some music from around 2009 and it gave me found memories of skuemorphism of WIndows 7 and its beautiful gradients. ... ok I am exgerating that part.

 

But I was just adding some themes to Windows 7 tonight and I have to say it is so gorgeous with its shadows, glass, and consistency. I should start a poll for Win 7 loyalists on favorite skuemorphic features? Best looking OS ever and still waiting for an operating system that is as stable and reliable.

 

Windows 10 maybe it some day but not today.

 

Until Microsoft returns to its roots with Windows 7 with aero, shadows, gradients, and sanity I am sticking with Windows 7 like the rest of us on that and still Windows XP.

 

 

For looks, that's just subjective. IMO I find windows 8 and 10 better looking than win7.Let's face facts aero is never coming back..

 

I enjoy a clean look of 10.

 

[MikeChipshop Member]

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.

Actually the inconsistencies in OSX are great.

[tompkin]

For what it's worth, here is my guess of the future...Ballmer said, "devices and services". Nadella says "mobile and the cloud". Actually, it's going to be, "Devices and the Cloud".

 

 "Devices and the Cloud"--- Devices is more than mobile. It includes the "Internet of Things". (or The Internet of Everything.) The "Desktop" will be some sort of Surface device, and "devices" will include tablets and smartphones, with smartphones being the "controller" for devices in the home and possibly the car as well. Walking in to your home you can turn on the t.v., check the temperature of your house, turn off the security alarm, etc., all with your smartphone.

The big thing for Microsoft on the desktop is the Microsoft account. They want us to move to the cloud as much as possible. (Office367 Home and Personal, etc.), "Windows as a Service", etc. This is the ideal for Microsoft. Of course, not everyone is going to like the new world. I sure won't. There can't be total online dependency because in the case, like while I'm writing this right now, we're expecting an ice storm where the electricity will likely go out. 

 

As a side note, I don't think the concept of "live tiles" is actually new. Does anyone remember the "live desktop" that came out with IE4? It couldn't work because the machines at that time didn't have enough resources. The "live" concept has been around for a long time!

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

There have been a number of attempts to have things similar to live tiles... like all of the Gadgets and live desktops etc in various versions of Windows, or the Sidebars in almost every old browser... they never seem to gain a substantial following.

[Knife Party]

Actually the inconsistencies in OSX are great.

good for you.

[Rickkins]

I am easily able to tweak 10 to the way I like; basically looking like 7, but with the taskbar setup from XP. Adding Classic Shell to the mix fixes the start menu. I doubt it's gonna get much better for the desktop warriors like myself, so as long as it doesn't get any worse I guess I'm gonna be ok.

[PGHammer]

There have been a number of attempts to have things similar to live tiles... like all of the Gadgets and live desktops etc in various versions of Windows, or the Sidebars in almost every old browser... they never seem to gain a substantial following.

So, just because things have failed before, they will fail now?

 

Tiles are basically modernized gadgets (which Windows on the desktop - specifically Vista and 7 - had before).  Live desktops are modernized versions of ActiveDesktop (which both Windows 9x and even Windows NT had before - and even WindowBlinds and WinFX have today).  The reason there has not been much interest is due to unwillingness to adopt them - not lack of capabilities.  Meanwhile, the choice is there - to use them or NOT to use them.

 

Live tiles (first on StartScreen, and now on mini-Start) keep me from opening big piggy applications needlessly, by keeping an eye on things like my mail, so I don't have to. (And when you have multiple mailboxes, opening up Outlook (for example) can get REALLY porkish.)  Nobody is forcing me to use it.

Actually... Yes. For once, I have to say that hits the nail on the head.

Metro was born out of desperation. Microsoft was desperate that they were totally behind the game with phones and tablets. So they locked up some designers in the basement, and after some massive abuse of illegal substances, those designers came up with Metro.

Metro was put on their Zune first in 2006, which was an abysmal failure and never could even get remotely close to the iPod.

 

More desperation.

 

Zune isn't big enough, let's put Metro on an actual phone - the Windows Phone. Likewise, the Windows Phone failed horribly, and sales numbers stayed ridiculously low. A major update, Mango 7.5, didn't help anything.

 

Desperation reached a new all-time high.

 

Following the maxime "Desperate times require desperate means", Microsoft decided to force all desktop users to use their Windows Phone Metro UI on the desktop, without alternatives, without the possibility to go back to the way they used to work. It's "Eat metro or die." Their rationale behind this was, if people are forced to use Metro on the desktop,with no alternatives, they will want to use it on the phone as well, and Windows Phone sales would explode. The reality was (and still is) quite different from this pipe dream. Not only didn't this help at all to boost Windows Phone sales, still lumbering at 3% up to this day, but now the desktop, the Metro-ized Windows 8, turned out to be a dismal failure as well - thanks to Metro.

 

Yet more desperation abounds.

 

Microsoft rows back a little in Windows 8.1 and takes back a little of the Metro stuff. It doesn't help much, and Windows 8 can only move from "horribly unpopular" to "massively unpopular". To this day, usage of Windows 8+8.1 is only at 13% (while XP is still at 18% and Win 7 is at 56%).

 

Microsoft is rotating with desperation.

 

The decision is made to distance themselves as much as possible from the horrible failure of Windows 8, skip over Windows 9 and name the next Windows no. 10. They also decide to take out some Metro stuff and do a better desktop again. However, since it's Microsoft and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, others decided that they want more Metro instead of less. Thus we now get more Metro-ized apps, system apps get more Metro-ized (e.g. monster-sized calculator, PC settings all over the place), and some of the previous changes got reverted (e.g. non-resizable humongous start menu, which isn't much different from the start screen anymore).

 

Microsoft really needs to get their act together. They urgently need to flush Metro down the toilet, because everything that Metro touched (be it Zune, the Windows Phone or the desktop) turned into an abysmal failure. Yet they are too boneheaded or just too inept to own up to their faillure and either innovate and come up with something completely new that isn't an abysmal failure like Metro, or if they can't do that, go back to what worked fine with Windows 7.

 

At this rate, if Microsoft should prove too complacent and too resistant to change and boneheadedly cling to the massive failure that is Metro, which has only got them nothing but abysmal failures multiple times in a row already, they'll just shoot themselves in the foot and may very well end up with a second failure like Windows 8. They need to wake up from their complacency and their Metro pipe dream, face the reality that Metro has got them nothing but huge failures and come up with something completely new, which has nothing to do with Metro. In the meantime, they could go back to what has worked well with Windows 7, just to tide them over. Stolidly clinging to Metro, which has just proven time and time again to perform abhorrently bad, will just steer them right into the next disaster.

Kazama - you are basically asking Microsoft to not move at all from Windows 7.  In a word, why?

 

Why should Microsoft basically not move?

[Dot Matrix]

The decision is made to distance themselves as much as possible from the horrible failure of Windows 8, skip over Windows 9 and name the next Windows no. 10.

 

No, they're not distancing themselves from Windows 8. Windows 10 was built off of it, and has matured the OS into a true universal platform. Microsoft skipped over the Windows 9 name because of legacy coding reasons.

 

This has been said multiple times now. But don't let reason and logic stand in the way of your unintelligent ranting.  

[MikeChipshop Member]

good for you.

It's a part of this discussion and directly related to the fud you were going to spread. Either discuss or don't bother replying... Oh wait you can't discuss it further because you'll just dig yourself in to a deeper hole.

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

So, just because things have failed before, they will fail now?

 

I find it likely that when you repeatedly do the same thing that has failed numbers of times in the past, success is far from assured. But good luck to MS with that.