Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[PGHammer]

The kid part of "kidding" sounds about right. I'm getting the impression this is someone who simply wasn't around or aware yet of XP during its first 2-3 years on the market. Aside from being a significant jump in hardware requirements over the Windows 2000 it was built from, and aside from being panned as a "Fisher Price" OS, aside from the vitriolic hatred spewed by users introduced to product activation for the first time in Windows, aside from people declaring there was no reason to upgrade because Windows 2000 was the better choice and worked just fine (sound familiar?), aside from gamers sticking to Windows 9x for its superior DOS compatibility well into the 200x's, aside from all of that, well... No, that's pretty much all that needs to be said. The Cult of XP Nostalgia has been soundly and thoroughly mocked into irrelevance over the years, and the only confusing thing happening here is that for someone to be too young to remember the early days of XP, it makes no sense for them to have an old geezer attitude about technology only needing to be good-enough-for-grandma.

 

Some people out there simply have no idea what the markets are out there. They can't see beyond their own bubble of needs and wants. When a technology company starts doing something that they can't relate to, it makes them angry, and they declare it stupid and pointless and, speaking for all these imaginary people just-like-them, insist "nobody wants this". These are like the political nutcases who believe their opinions match those of the silent majority they speak for.

 

If nothing else, this guy is ready to age into dementia at his future talk radio show on an AM frequency in fly-over country.

Spot on.

 

I call such thinking the *complacency trap* - it starts with the assumption that all users they work with are *just like them* - I work VERY hard to NOT fall into that trap.

 

Still, look at merely the tankage after the launch of 7.  Despite the fact that the tankage preceded the launch of 8 by several months (and also affected the Apple market - which a true 8-related tank would NOT have done), there is STILL a tendency to blame the tank in PC (if not computer related sales as a whole) sales on Windows 8.  Occam's Razor alone makes that theory unlikely, as that would require that Apple sales are directly affected by sales of the competition.  If that were, in fact, the case, the affect would be positive (if Windows 8 were, in fact, the case) - not negative - that points to the economy - not the OS itself.

[adrynalyne]

The kid part of "kidding" sounds about right. I'm getting the impression this is someone who simply wasn't around or aware yet of XP during its first 2-3 years on the market.

 

 

 

 

 

I bought XP when it 1st came out. I put Windows 2000 back on my system ... err roommate stole my XP cd. Windows 2000 worked fine until around 2006.

 

.. and DOT XP has a NT kernel making it super reliable and during 2005 it was hot stuff! Windows 98 was on its way out then but still kicking.

 

 

 

 

You betrayed yourself in showing that you don't know the mess XP was when it first came out....it was released in 2001.

[Ian W]

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.

Metro did not originate with Microsoft's Zune.

 

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.

Say what you will about sales numbers but there is data to suggest that Windows Phone performs rather well in parts of the world.

Since we're on the subject of Metro I do wonder what sort of design you would have proposed for Windows Phone. A copy of the interface in Android or iOS, perhaps? Metro is why Windows Phone received numerous awards from the Industrial Designers Society of America.

 

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."

Nonsense. There were and are plenty of alternatives available to users.

 

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.

Where is the announcement from the company or statement from an executive which states this? You lie.

 

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).

As much as possible isn't very far then, as the number 10 isn't far from 8. I've argued this point with you before. An "aspirational" moniker would have done well to distance the product from Windows 8, and even from the naming scheme used since Windows 7. It would convey a sense of freshness to users

[Dot Matrix]

Metro did not originate with Microsoft's Zune.

Say what you will about sales numbers but there is data to suggest that Windows Phone performs rather well in parts of the world.

Since we're on the subject of Metro I do wonder what sort of design you would have proposed for Windows Phone. A copy of the interface in Android or iOS, perhaps? Metro is why Windows Phone received numerous awards from the Industrial Designers Society of America.

Nonsense. There were and are plenty of alternatives available to users.

Where is the announcement from the company or statement from an executive which states this? You lie.

As much as possible isn't very far then, as the number 10 isn't far from 8. I've argued this point with you before. An "aspirational" moniker would have done well to distance the product from Windows 8, and even from the naming scheme used since Windows 7. It would convey a sense of freshness to users

[DeusProto]

There is a tug-of-war between two polar opposites - those that wish to advance, and the complacent.

 

The complacent are of the opinion that Windows reached its zenith with 7 - and should not advance further.  (Problem - where do you go if you can't go forward?)

 

What honestly scares me about that is there are all too many cases of a stalled or complacent OS first losing developers, then losing the user base, and finally outright dying.

 

Apparently, the complacent largely don't care.  (That is, in fact, why I wonder what their real motive is - I doubt they are stupid; still, I doubt they are being all that honest, either.)

Daring to advance is not exactly safe, but it's a lot safer in a business sense than standing still.

IMO making the GUI look uglier than Windows 9X and 2000 (because even Windows 98 and 2000 had gradient titlebars) is not something that should be considered advancement.  I don't understand why desktop users should be forced to have an ugly and flat GUI and lose their Aero Glass. Fine for mobile users disable it but for desktop users why can't we have our gradients and pretty UI? 

 

I have two video cards linked by Crossfire X and would like the CHOICE to use my GPU resources to have transparency, gradients, and other good eyecandy window captions and objects.

 

You can't even set the titlebars to black without making text invisible! And to make matters worse, text is no longer centered in WIndows 10 on the caption bars.. its pushed to the left which is incredibly ugly. 

 

At least with Windows 8.1 there's third party skins to rectify the ugly UI. But compared to 10, Win 8.1's GUI is beautiful. It seems to get worse and worse: Desktop users are forced to use an ugly GUI for the sake of mobile users and their precious battery power.

 

Why not give desktop users the CHOICE to opt out of this minimalism and use a skeumorphic and pretty GUI? At least for Win32 apps... 

You also are forced to use ugly and dull gray for the inactive window caption... NO customability AT ALL for color of window objects besides the active titlebar - and if you want a dark color bye bye text. 

 

IMO both the desktop users AND power users are being given the shaft here. Option panels are progressively dumbed down and reduced each new version to give fewer and fewer advanced options. 

 

I am fine with touch and mobile being ingrained in the OS, but why should it take away from the desktop user experience that most people prefer? The eyecandy of Win7, the power user friendly advanced customability? I believe THAT is why there is animosity towards touch and mobile by some people - because they are being forced to make do with deprecation in favor of mobile and touch users. If Microsoft didn't take away our eye candy GUI and deprecate the ability to fine tune window object colors then I think desktop users wouldn't really care about mobile and touch being in the OS. 

 

I would be 100% fine with a Metro version of this old Control Panel applet that was removed from Windows if it had ALL options included: 

[nosense]

IMO making the GUI look uglier than Windows 9X and 2000 (because even Windows 98 and 2000 had gradient titlebars) is not something that should be considered advancement.  I don't understand why desktop users should be forced to have an ugly and flat GUI and lose their Aero Glass. Fine for mobile users disable it but for desktop users why can't we have our gradients and pretty UI? 

 

I have two video cards linked by Crossfire X and would like the CHOICE to use my GPU resources to have transparency, gradients, and other good eyecandy window captions and objects.

 

You can't even set the titlebars to black without making text invisible! And to make matters worse, text is no longer centered in WIndows 10 on the caption bars.. its pushed to the left which is incredibly ugly. 

 

At least with Windows 8.1 there's third party skins to rectify the ugly UI. But compared to 10, Win 8.1's GUI is beautiful. It seems to get worse and worse: Desktop users are forced to use an ugly GUI for the sake of mobile users and their precious battery power.

 

Why not give desktop users the CHOICE to opt out of this minimalism and use a skeumorphic and pretty GUI? At least for Win32 apps... 

You also are forced to use ugly and dull gray for the inactive window caption... NO customability AT ALL for color of window objects besides the active titlebar - and if you want a dark color bye bye text. 

 

IMO both the desktop users AND power users are being given the shaft here. Option panels are progressively dumbed down and reduced each new version to give fewer and fewer advanced options. 

 

I am fine with touch and mobile being ingrained in the OS, but why should it take away from the desktop user experience that most people prefer? The eyecandy of Win7, the power user friendly advanced customability? I believe THAT is why there is animosity towards touch and mobile by some people - because they are being forced to make do with deprecation in favor of mobile and touch users. If Microsoft didn't take away our eye candy GUI and deprecate the ability to fine tune window object colors then I think desktop users wouldn't really care about mobile and touch being in the OS. 

 

I would be 100% fine with a Metro version of this old Control Panel applet that was removed from Windows if it had ALL options included: 

And that sums it all up "IMO".

[DeusProto]

And that seems it all up "IMO".

It sums it all up in YOUR opinion... 

 

Which, I've noticed, you added none beyond an ad hominem. 

[Ian W]

Longhorn was just eye candy and bloat which would use more resources for the same tasks now since winfs was gone.

Why is it that those who don't like Windows Vista can't look beyond "WinFS"? There were many other features intended for the operating system when it was known as "Longhorn" that made it into Windows Vista, and some features that were hinted at, but not announced during that time period, that are beneficial to users today. I guess the new audio stack, the new boot architecture, the new display driver architecture, the new networking stack, the new print architecture, the new component servicing and update architecture, and the new WIM installation routine and deployment format are just not good enough for people such as yourself. And this is not even including the other major changes, for example, the change in the way that windows are drawn with the Desktop Window Manager, or how administrators and users are protected with User Account Control. Then again, it may be difficult to appreciate these changes when they're only listed "on paper."

The significance of some of these features is only beginning to be realized. If one looks at the WIM installation routine that Windows Vista introduced, for example, he or she will see that it is ultimately what enables the WIMBoot feature.

I regard Windows Vista as one of the most significant releases of Windows since the inception of Windows NT. It is unfortunate that the uninformed feel the need to besmirch the OS.

[nosense]

It sums it all up in YOUR opinion... 

 

Which, I've noticed, you added none beyond an ad hominem. 

Okay.... First off the black title bar is getting fix when they introduce black and light theme.

 

You can't customize the themes like in windows 8.1? THIS OS IS NOT EVEN OUT YET and yes uxtheme muti theme patcher does work with windows 10. But why would anybody build a theme for it right now, when things can change in the next build.

 

Options panal AKA settings is not finsh....

 

Gradient tool bars IMO is butt ugly and so is aero IMO.

 

I guess people do like gaudy\blingy design. I like clean simple design, which IMO windows 10 has.

[Ian W]

But 8 is just a cell phone on a desktop. That my friend is not real innovation. XP and 7 are the ones with the marketshare show what the users prefer and where the market wants to be.

Your comment about "real" innovation is peculiar; either something is innovative or it is not. I think that if you look up the definition of innovation you will find that it describes Windows 8.

 

Innovation

noun in

[PGHammer]

Great post. I don't think KL will listen to any of it though.

KL is reacting to aesthetic differences - as are most of the posters critical of 10 (or even 8).

 

Still, I AM noticing something rather telling - by and large, I am NOT hearing complaints about broken software - especially desktop applications.

 

In fact, so far, in terms of non-gaming desktop software, I have heard exactly NO complaints of broke desktop applications. (None whatever.)  Game breakage is also down compared to 8+ - which was down compared to 7 at the same point - or even since 7 went RTM.

 

For all the aesthetic complaints, apparently Microsoft broke very little in terms of backward compatibility.  (When was the last time that Microsoft had consecutive operating systems with a rate of backward compatibility greater than ninety percent?  If 8.1 is considered separately from 8, 10 could well be the third straight such Microsoft desktop operating system - unheard-of!)

 

Could THAT be the reason FOR all the aesthetic complaints - that there is practically very little ELSE to complain about?

[Dot Matrix]

IMO making the GUI look uglier than Windows 9X and 2000 (because even Windows 98 and 2000 had gradient titlebars) is not something that should be considered advancement.  I don't understand why desktop users should be forced to have an ugly and flat GUI and lose their Aero Glass. Fine for mobile users disable it but for desktop users why can't we have our gradients and pretty UI? 

 

I have two video cards linked by Crossfire X and would like the CHOICE to use my GPU resources to have transparency, gradients, and other good eyecandy window captions and objects.

 

You can't even set the titlebars to black without making text invisible! And to make matters worse, text is no longer centered in WIndows 10 on the caption bars.. its pushed to the left which is incredibly ugly. 

 

At least with Windows 8.1 there's third party skins to rectify the ugly UI. But compared to 10, Win 8.1's GUI is beautiful. It seems to get worse and worse: Desktop users are forced to use an ugly GUI for the sake of mobile users and their precious battery power.

 

Why not give desktop users the CHOICE to opt out of this minimalism and use a skeumorphic and pretty GUI? At least for Win32 apps... 

You also are forced to use ugly and dull gray for the inactive window caption... NO customability AT ALL for color of window objects besides the active titlebar - and if you want a dark color bye bye text. 

 

IMO both the desktop users AND power users are being given the shaft here. Option panels are progressively dumbed down and reduced each new version to give fewer and fewer advanced options. 

 

I am fine with touch and mobile being ingrained in the OS, but why should it take away from the desktop user experience that most people prefer? The eyecandy of Win7, the power user friendly advanced customability? I believe THAT is why there is animosity towards touch and mobile by some people - because they are being forced to make do with deprecation in favor of mobile and touch users. If Microsoft didn't take away our eye candy GUI and deprecate the ability to fine tune window object colors then I think desktop users wouldn't really care about mobile and touch being in the OS. 

 

I would be 100% fine with a Metro version of this old Control Panel applet that was removed from Windows if it had ALL options included: 

The UI isn't anywhere complete yet. Options deprecate over time, there's plenty of options for power users in Win10, and there will be theme support with Metro applications (light & dark), as well as color selections. Going by your screenshot, half the items in your drop down have been deprecated from the Windows UI.

[George P Global Moderator]

We're months away from a final UI, that should be clear to everyone. The only parts of the UI they've worked on for now is the taskbar, start menu/screen and to a lesser extent window chrome. We're getting thin or no window borders now and with that a return to bigger drop shadows. The title bar has changed and apps can now choose not to have a distinct bar anymore, just extend the UI all the way now.

 

They haven't yet done any work for specific things other than the new settings app to replace control panel.

 

Once more of the features are done they'll work on more UI changes, I bet the version we get by BUILD in late April will look a good deal different from todays.  

[patseguin Global Moderator]

LOL i stopped reading at "I love the new of vista" "They had a beautiful UI".

 

God, I hated the rounded corners of windows in both vista\7. Than again im more into simple design and not into blingy,gaudy looking design.

 

Win 10 is not even done with the UI, taskbar transparency and menu transparency is coming in the next couple builds.

That was obviously a typo. I loved the new UI graphics they introduced with Vista and then refined in 7. Yes, Vista was a pretty ###### poor OS but as far as it's UI, I thought it was brilliant. I liked the glowing title bar buttons with gradients. I know people will never agree and say that the flat look is better, but in my humble opinion the UI on the left is much more pleasant to look at and fun to use. 10 is boring and ugly. No transparency, no advanced effects of any kind, horrid left justification of title bar text. It just seems like more thought went into Vista's UI and then when they release Windows 7, they had the best MS OS ever. Beautiful interface and outstanding performance. I am really excited about Windows 10's new features but the bland and ugly UI kind of puts a damper on the excitement.

 

Explain to me how the icons are pixelated? Flat, minimalist design is the "in' thing right now. Everything from personalized business cards, to interior decorating is using these design concepts. Microsoft and Google adapting these concepts for their operating systems are merely an extension of that. Simplistic design is helping make technology more accessible to people that would otherwise find it too complex. It's also helping create professional looking, but relaxed business applications, as evidenced by the Surface Hub, Modern Office templates, etc that are easy to understand and use.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stories/design/

Maybe pixelated was the wrong term. They just look like the 16 color icons you would have seen in Windows 3.1. They took nice realistic look icons from Windows Vista/7 and dumbed them down and made them ugly. I can go along with flat if they do it in en elegant way. Apple did it with Yosemite. I also really like that mockup someone posted. Hopefully MS isn't done, but I'm pretty sure we'll get a transparent start menu and that's about it.

We're months away from a final UI, that should be clear to everyone. The only parts of the UI they've worked on for now is the taskbar, start menu/screen and to a lesser extent window chrome. We're getting thin or no window borders now and with that a return to bigger drop shadows. The title bar has changed and apps can now choose not to have a distinct bar anymore, just extend the UI all the way now.

 

They haven't yet done any work for specific things other than the new settings app to replace control panel.

 

Once more of the features are done they'll work on more UI changes, I bet the version we get by BUILD in late April will look a good deal different from todays.  

That sounds reasonable and I hope you are right.

[nosense]

That was obviously a typo. I loved the new UI graphics they introduced with Vista and then refined in 7. Yes, Vista was a pretty ###### poor OS but as far as it's UI, I thought it was brilliant. I liked the glowing title bar buttons with gradients. I know people will never agree and say that the flat look is better, but in my humble opinion the UI on the left is much more pleasant to look at and fun to use. 10 is boring and ugly. No transparency, no advanced effects of any kind, horrid left justification of title bar text. It just seems like more thought went into Vista's UI and then when they release Windows 7, they had the best MS OS ever. Beautiful interface and outstanding performance. I am really excited about Windows 10's new features but the bland and ugly UI kind of puts a damper on the excitement.

 

Maybe pixelated was the wrong term. They just look like the 16 color icons you would have seen in Windows 3.1. They took nice realistic look icons from Windows Vista/7 and dumbed them down and made them ugly. I can go along with flat if they do it in en elegant way. Apple did it with Yosemite. I also really like that mockup someone posted. Hopefully MS isn't done, but I'm pretty sure we'll get a transparent start menu and that's about it.

That sounds reasonable and I hope you are right.

That screen shot of windows 10 is a mess, but you can also have a clean look to it too. Here's what win10 looks on my system.

 

[patseguin Global Moderator]

That does look pretty nice nosense. I'd just like to see maybe a little glass used in the window title bars. The whole window just has a really underwhelming look to it. Just 3 simple line images for the minimize, maximize, and close buttons and the lack of a border and/or bevel make it look like it's missing something.

 

P.S. How did you get rid of the Cortana search field?

[DeusProto]

That does look pretty nice nosense. I'd just like to see maybe a little glass used in the window title bars. The whole window just has a really underwhelming look to it. Just 3 simple line images for the minimize, maximize, and close buttons and the lack of a border and/or bevel make it look like it's missing something.

 

P.S. How did you get rid of the Cortana search field?

Yeah the buttons are the thing that irks me the most.

 

I could live with a GUI like this even though ultimately I want Aero Glass or something equally pretty.. the Silk for Windows 10 theme which is basically a dark colored Windows 8.1 skin with multiple choice of close button color, also a lovely dark explorer sidebar:

 

Unfortunately that skin only works for the first technical preview build

Source: http://link6155.deviantart.com/art/Silk-for-Windows-10-Technical-Preview-487071428

 

Note: This screenshot shows the ribbon disabled with OldNewExplorer, but personally I am fine with the ribbon. 

 

Also something like this skin would be easily scaleable for mobile devices. Scaleable GUIs don't have to mean ugly. 

 

[nosense]

Right click task bar and  you have options  to disable it or have just an icon.

[TAZMINATOR]

That does look pretty nice nosense. I'd just like to see maybe a little glass used in the window title bars. The whole window just has a really underwhelming look to it. Just 3 simple line images for the minimize, maximize, and close buttons and the lack of a border and/or bevel make it look like it's missing something.

 

P.S. How did you get rid of the Cortana search field?

 

Right-click on taskbar and select Properties then go to Toolbars tab..  You can change the Cortana settings in the dropdown menu on that screen.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

Right click task bar and  you have options  to disable it or have just an icon.

Cool thanks, I never thought of that. Now I just have the circle showing, looks much better.

Yeah the buttons are the thing that irks me the most.

 

I could live with a GUI like this even though ultimately I want Aero Glass or something equally pretty.. the Silk for Windows 10 theme which is basically a dark colored Windows 8.1 skin with multiple choice of close button color, also a lovely dark explorer sidebar:

 

Unfortunately that skin only works for the first technical preview build

Source: http://link6155.deviantart.com/art/Silk-for-Windows-10-Technical-Preview-487071428

 

Note: This screenshot shows the ribbon disabled with OldNewExplorer, but personally I am fine with the ribbon. 

 

Also something like this skin would be easily scaleable for mobile devices. Scaleable GUIs don't have to mean ugly. 

 

Yeah what you are saying is pretty much what I am trying to convey. I can live with the current UI too if they would just spruce it up and modernize it a bit. Give those of us with decent graphics cards and CPU's an option for more advanced UI settings like glass, shadows, gradients, whatever.

[Ian W]

- there is still no per-monitor dpi support, a very basic requirement. Instead there's the very confusing screen resolution 'apply to all monitors' nonsense.

According to this post Windows 8.1 introduced per-display DPI scaling.

[DeadEndAccount]

Yeah the buttons are the thing that irks me the most.

 

I could live with a GUI like this even though ultimately I want Aero Glass or something equally pretty.. the Silk for Windows 10 theme which is basically a dark colored Windows 8.1 skin with multiple choice of close button color, also a lovely dark explorer sidebar:

 

Unfortunately that skin only works for the first technical preview build

Source: http://link6155.deviantart.com/art/Silk-for-Windows-10-Technical-Preview-487071428

 

Note: This screenshot shows the ribbon disabled with OldNewExplorer, but personally I am fine with the ribbon. 

 

Also something like this skin would be easily scaleable for mobile devices. Scaleable GUIs don't have to mean ugly. 

 

 

Now that is gorgeous - I only wish that Microsoft would take on board these ideas or at least provide a way for people to apply their customisations without having to hack up a DLL to make it possible. Flat, minimalist and yet has personality - love the idea, now if only there were icons in the same sort of style to complete the look and feel then it would be the perfect evolution of the 'Metro language' for the desktop.

[Defcon]

According to this post Windows 8.1 introduced per-display DPI scaling.

Yes, Windows tries to figure out how to scale things. But you still can't choose the DPI for each monitor, and things like 'make text 125% larger' apply to ALL displays, which makes the whole thing useless.

 

Its a solution which doesn't actually solve anything.

[PGHammer]

Yes, Windows tries to figure out how to scale things. But you still can't choose the DPI for each monitor, and things like 'make text 125% larger' apply to ALL displays, which makes the whole thing useless.

 

Its a solution which doesn't actually solve anything.

And how DO you solve that when no OS has per-display scaling where multi-display support exists?

 

The only way that has EVER been even possible is when display and display-driver (the hardware GPU) are sold together (basically, closed-source and proprietary) - where that STILL exists is in hyperniche usage (such as highest-end CAD/CAM displays) - are you basically suggesting a return to that?

[Defcon]

And how DO you solve that when no OS has per-display scaling where multi-display support exists?

 

The only way that has EVER been even possible is when display and display-driver (the hardware GPU) are sold together (basically, closed-source and proprietary) - where that STILL exists is in hyperniche usage (such as highest-end CAD/CAM displays) - are you basically suggesting a return to that?

Are you suggesting this problem cannot be solved? What has closed vs open source got to do with it? Its an engineering problem of getting different sclaing algorithms to run on different monitors and of course its possible to do, since the drivers are certified by MS.