Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[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)

All THAT means is that the issue - for him - was unfamiliarity - not consistency.

 

Unfamiliarity as an issue I get - there's not a thing wrong with admitting that.  (I even pointed that out as a reason why folks would pass - back during the Previews of 8.)  However, unfamiliarity has nothing to do with UI consistency.

Second, PC Settings is, in fact, new with the 10 Technical Preview - 8 and 8.1 have Control Panel, which was largely unchanged from 7.

Thirdly, a consistent UI may be desirable; however, it should not get in the way of the more critical elements of a successful OS - especially one that is going to be a successor to my current OS.

 

To remind the audience what those three elements are, they are as follows -

 

1.  It must perform at least as well as the OS it is bidding to replace.  (This is non-negotiable.)

2.  It must run all the same software as the operating system that it is bidding to replace.  (Again, this is not negotiable.)

3.  It must support the hardware supported by the previous OS - at minimum.  (If it supports MORE hardware, that's fine; however, it should not force spendy upgrades merely for the same usability metric as the OS it is looking to replace.)

 

Note that a consistent UI is not on that list - it's not there because it is, at best, a SECONDARY metric - not a primary one.

[PGHammer]

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.

So what do you add to the desktop frameworks that developers would necessarily use (or want to use) - since the new frameworks are deemed (by you) as to not be acceptable for desktop usage?

You are basically asking that NO new desktop frameworks be added - that means that the developers are, in point of fact, constrained to existing frameworks.  That is - in your own words - not consistent. (That same attitude is exactly what I mean by "Do not advance!" - you want to stick with the familiar, and the desktop-application developers are, in fact, largely listening (except Microsoft, that is).  It's not that the new frameworks can't be used there - Modern Design Language can, and is, being used there.  However, you are trying to banish even MDL from the desktop - in the name of familiarity and complacency - not consistency.)

 

Not even developers want to be constrained forever - that is why they are moving into non-constrained areas (such as Android, and iOS, and even (surprisingly) the WinRT API) - they are not as constrained by API standards as the older desktop APIs (not just Win32, but even the OS X desktop API).  However, there IS still a place for the older desktop APIs - even Win32.  Not one user, including me, is saying otherwise.  If a "pure" (consistent-UI) OS doesn't work (the failure of Windows RT should make that rather obvious - I called that same "pure" OS a hedge-bet), that means that new frameworks must be able to exist alongside the older (and admittedly more proven with users) frameworks.  Again, unfortunately for you, Windows 8+ (including the Technical Previews of 10) does get that right.

[PGHammer]

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?

I'm not arguing against consistency per se - I'm arguing in favor of addressing the primary metrics first - and UI consistency is way down on the priority list - as it should be.

Also, I doubt that consistency is the real aim of those arguing in favor of moving it to a primary metric - especially since they are also arguing in favor of the non-use of new APIs and frameworks on the desktop (such as Modern Design Language).  On the one hand, they hate the new APIs (they actually see them as competing with the old ones) and want to consign them to perdition - on the other hand, they see existing desktop APIs as being bland and boring.  That isn't consistent at all - if anything, it is the opposite.  It sounds like the real desire is that all developers must use the old APIs - that is either complacency or development-by-diktat.

[Kazama Levi]

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.

 

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

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./

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

[nosense]

 

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

And yet you do the samething...

 

[PGHammer]

Please - the only thing that was shunned by the consumer was anything having to do with computers.  Tablets sold, smartphones sold.  PCs (regardless of OS) didn't sell - by your definition, Windows 7 (which was out when the economy fell down) was ALSO a failure - same applies to OS X, which also had sales tank.  New hardware was affected because would-be purchasers went to tablets and smartphones instead of PCs (or Macs).  Upgrades didn't happen because there was no compelling reason to upgrade - despite the hardware requirements being unchanged.  It's FAR easier to not spend money in a bad economy. (I made precisely that point during the Consumer Preview - go back and read that thread.)

 

Further, the recovery is making mincemeat out of your argument - PCs are selling again, and largely they come with Windows 8.1.  Mac sales are up as well - that means that the recovery - like the downturn - was across the computing board.  Tablet sales, however, are down; eaten into by larger-screen phones and the phablet category (folks "trading up").

 

In other words, it is STILL the economy.

[BajiRav]

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

Explain how/why WIndows 7 sold better then. It shares almost all of the inconsistencies of Vista/8 (almost because it lacked things unique to Vista/8).

[PGHammer]

Explain how/why WIndows 7 sold better then. It shares almost all of the inconsistencies of Vista/8 (almost because it lacked things unique to Vista/8).

BajiRav - he is trying to make the complacency argument; the issue WITH the argument is that it requires not looking at all the data.

 

His argument is based on looking at Windows 8 sales in isolation - he is assuming economic conditions were the same as those during 7's initial success.  They weren't - in fact, 7's own sales tanked during the early part of the Great Recession - and didn't recover.  7 and 8 overlapped during the Great Recession; because that Great Recession continued, 8 didn't sell well, and especially on new hardware.  However, new computing hardware as a whole sold poorly - including sales of Macs.  What sold instead?  Tablets, smartphones, even feature phones - especially in developing countries such as the BRIC.  None of it is as pricey as a PC - even a low-end PC.  How is it Windows 8's "fault" that Macs don't sell?

 

The current recovery is another piece of data he refuses to look at for the same reason - it undercuts the complacency argument still further.  PCs (of all sorts) are selling again - and by and large, it's not 7 on them.  PCs with touch are ALSO selling in greater numbers - in categories where touch and non-touch overlap (such as AIOs), they are selling in identical numbers.  (Basically, so much for touch being rejected.)

 

His argument is deliberately lacking data AND it is rather simplistic - so simplistic that I'm tempted to reject it out of hand.  However, I'm actually trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[DeadEndAccount]

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.

 

But that really isn't an excuse for the bundled applications and UI of a clean install of Windows to be such an inconsistent mess. Microsoft cannot force third parties to update their code and clean up their interface but one would expect at the very least that Windows 10 on a clean boot up shouldn't have a single GDI object listed in the Task Manager - that the whole GUI and bundled applications should be re-written using WinRT with the only applications linking to the win32/GDI/MFC are legacy applications that haven't been updated yet. Microsoft have the man power - the fact that they haven't done it and still fail to do it in Windows 10 tells me more about laziness in Microsoft more than anything else.

[nosense]

What GDI objects\process are you talking about?

But that really isn't an excuse for the bundled applications and UI of a clean install of Windows to be such an inconsistent mess. Microsoft cannot force third parties to update their code and clean up their interface but one would expect at the very least that Windows 10 on a clean boot up shouldn't have a single GDI object listed in the Task Manager - that the whole GUI and bundled applications should be re-written using WinRT with the only applications linking to the win32/GDI/MFC are legacy applications that haven't been updated yet. Microsoft have the man power - the fact that they haven't done it and still fail to do it in Windows 10 tells me more about laziness in Microsoft more than anything else.

[DeadEndAccount]

What GDI objects\process are you talking about?

 

Open up task scheduler, add 'GDI Objects' to the column then look.

 

btw, don't top post, post below the quoted text so that the replies go I chronological order.

[HawkMan]

desktop perfected with windows 7...

no, nothing is ever perfect, especially not in the ever fluid and evolving world of computing

[onewarmslime]

HawkMan, on 07 Feb 2015 - 21:58, said:HawkMan, on 07 Feb 2015 - 21:58, said:

desktop perfected with windows 7...

no, nothing is ever perfect, especially not in the ever fluid and evolving world of computing

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

[HawkMan]

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

 

wow... so on one hand you say it was perfect but then computers evolved(yah, duh, they do that constantly) so it became more perfect with 7, and then it was perfect.... as if stuff hasn't happened with computers since then and nothing will happen. like new and better inputs, new displays, and so on and so on...

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

 

If you want to discuss another operating system we have subforums for that. This one is for Microsoft beta operating systems.

[PGHammer]

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

The improvements are still coming hard and fast - however, they are mostly in the areas that hadn't seen much in the way of improvement while all the changes were going on elsewhere.

 

Displays - not only is 1080p a display standard, it's even gone portable - and touch support in displays is following 1080p into ubiquity.  (I'm not talking portable hardware - not even notebooks; I'm talking desktops - not alone the AIO space.  What is the spread TODAY between identical - except for touch support - 23" displays today?)

4K-capable GPUs - $200USD - at retail, and right now.  (Even more surprising, I'm talking single-GPU here, and mainstream at that.)

SSDs - Would you believe 500GB/512GB SSDs - and affordable?  Even for - yikes! - laptop or notebook use?  (Bigger shocker - they are physically SMALLER than the platter drives they would replace, use less power, and are three to four times their capacity.  Example #1 - Crucial's MX-200 500GB lower-end SSD (direct competition  - Samsung 850 EVO of the same capacity).  Price at Crucial Direct - $249.99. (http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ssd/ct500mx200ssd1)  Example #2 - the aforementioned SAMSUNG 850 EVO of the same capacity - $229.99USD at any retail MicroCenter or microcenter.com. (http://www.microcenter.com/product/442387/850_EVO-Series_500GB_SATA_III_60Gb-s_25_Internal_SSD_Single_Unit_Version_MZ-75E500B-AM).  Either drive is physically smaller than the 150GB SATA HDD in my HP dv9700 Altec Lansing Edition legacy notebook (the planned target), despite trumping the capacity by a factor of greater than two.  As to why such a large SSD in a legacy notebook, nothing prevents the notebook from lasting another five years except the current HDD capacity - in fact, it runs Windows 10 Technical Preview today.  Either drive absolutely fixes the capacity issue - not to mention the performance issue, and - as illustrated - neither is exactly pricey, even for a legacy notebook.

 

However, even taking JUST those changes into account, sticking with the same old software, and not moving, still locks you into a cage.  It may be a well-gilded cage, but a prison made of gold is still a prison - do you really want to live there forever?

 

That is very much the trap of complacency - when you get complacent, you are basically building your own prison cell.  If you're a tech company, you become IBM - which is actually facing ejection from the S&P 500.  I hate even the IDEA of prison - and I don't want to live down to the example of IBM, either.  It's why I have been constantly evaluating operating systems AND application software - since prior to Windows 9x. (I don't evaluate Windows in a vacuum - the same applies to the application software for it.)

[onewarmslime]

ow... so on one hand you say it was perfect but then computers evolved(yah, duh, they do that constantly) so it became more perfect with 7, and then it was perfect.... as if stuff hasn't happened with computers since then and nothing will happen. like new and better inputs, new displays, and so on and so on...

 

It didn't become more perfect with 7. Just got on with the times.

[HawkMan]

It didn't become more perfect with 7. Just got on with the times.

 

You mean it evolved.... but while you say it got better/evolved, you're on the other hand sayign it shouldn't evolve further.. even though the win 7 desktop has huge and major known faults that are improved upin in 8, 8.1 and more so in 10 and still has more improvements to go which may or may not come during win 10 dev or later in win10 or 11's life. 

[onewarmslime]

HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:

You mean it evolved.... but while you say it got better/evolved, you're on the other hand sayign it shouldn't evolve further.. even though the win 7 desktop has huge and major known faults that are improved upin in 8, 8.1 and more so in 10 and still has more improvements to go which may or may not come during win 10 dev or later in win10 or 11's life. 

 

Not sure what you mean, what I said was, today if I had to choose between windows 7 and XP I'd obviously choose 7 because I probably wouldn't even be able to install XP. Not for any other kind of reason (eg. not because I like aero better). I guess you can say it "evolved" but probably that's not a very accurate way of putting it. Also please name three "huge and major" faults in 7. I know I can name 3 in windows 8.

[HawkMan]

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

- 

 

oh you said 3....

[onewarmslime]

HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 02:59, said:

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

- 

 

oh you said 3....

none of these seem major faults to me but that's just me. Some of them aren't even valid though. Just because file copier has a nice graph in windows 8 and there's a better task manager doesn't make these features crap in windows 7. You don't need the right click in the lower left of the menu in W7 because there's a start menu (how often are you gonna use it for anything other than opening the control panel? and I know you're gonna say you're a pro user and you need cmd every minute of the day but if you're implying that a feature that saves you 3 seconds of pressing win+r and typing cmd is an essential part of the OS you need to rethink your priorities).

Some people find it easier to scroll down to a vertical list of apps than look at squares that are scattered all over the place. Again that's just preference though. Multi screen support is pretty much the only real lack and I would definitely not call it "huge and terrible flaw"...

[HawkMan]

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

- 

 

oh you said 3....

 

 

Red are major flaws, green while not major flaws perhaps are extremely important upgrades for power users.

 

the right click power user menu has no real substitute in the start menu, most of the items you need to go through the control panel to find or other places, or search.

 

and yes, terrible multi mon support is a MAJOR and terrible flaw. 

[ParadiseLost]

Unfortunately Windows 8's file copier doesn't support queueing so that makes it next to useless and not a suitable replacement for Teracopy. That despite dozens of comments requesting that very feature back in the day, that were obviously dismissed by Microsoft.

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/08/23/improving-our-file-management-basics-copy-move-rename-and-delete.aspx

[Noir Angel]

However, even taking JUST those changes into account, sticking with the same old software, and not moving, still locks you into a cage.  It may be a well-gilded cage, but a prison made of gold is still a prison - do you really want to live there forever?

 

That is very much the trap of complacency - when you get complacent, you are basically building your own prison cell.  If you're a tech company, you become IBM - which is actually facing ejection from the S&P 500.  I hate even the IDEA of prison - and I don't want to live down to the example of IBM, either.  It's why I have been constantly evaluating operating systems AND application software - since prior to Windows 9x. (I don't evaluate Windows in a vacuum - the same applies to the application software for it.)

 

And your solution to that is to just throw crap at the wall until some of it sticks? Making change for the sake of change is just as stupid.

[HawkMan]

And your solution to that is to just throw crap at the wall until some of it sticks? Making change for the sake of change is just as stupid.

 

Good thing that's not even remotely what MS did then...