Will You Replace Programs for Apps When Updating to Windows 10?

[JustGeorge]

I feel like there should be /sarcasm at the end of "better security". Windows has been proven to have the WORST security, out of all Operating Systems.

I disagree. I think OSX and Linux have had it so good is due to obscurity and malware writers simply going for the biggest impact. If all three OS's had equal market share, I think we'd find that Windows has had the most security related hardening of them all as Microsoft has been dealing with the problem far longer.

 

It'd be kinda funny to see all the Unix guys scrambling to patch code if malware authors decided to have a fire sale on exploits

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I really don't get people in IT continuing to assume that something is "impossible" - and especially in this field. IT historically has been in the "no longer impossible" business since its inception.

+1, and this is the point I am making.

Back in the day the idea of implementing a fully featured word processor in a GUI 'window' was considered impossible by some. Now the idea of not building it as a GUI application is considered absurd.

What most people don't seem to realise is that Win32 as an API is circling the rim. It will be deprecated in due course, and the only way to develop an application will be as a modern app.

If they didn't believe that you could build fully functional applications in this model, they wouldn't be going all in.

The strategy is clear...

[Chasethebase Veteran]

I'll wait and see what is available. I'll likely use Outlook at the very least, but I don't know what else yet. Hopefully it encourages app development on the levels of what is developed for Mac already, and also with improved UI as a lot of programs currently use legacy UI elements.

[Dot Matrix]

I feel like there should be /sarcasm at the end of "better security". Windows has been proven to have the WORST security, out of all Operating Systems.

Really? Then what's this?

[firey]

 

and again, modern has nothing to do with tablet interface, and unless you have been living under a rock and haven't seen anything of windows 10. they're windowed and you can have as many of them all over as you want. 

 

However.. the apps are  designed for touch based input.. windowed or not.  Therefore there is a lot of wasted space when it comes to a keyboard and mouse user.  I can click on things with much better precision and ussing a smaller area than a finger.  Which also means more  can be put on a window if not designed  around touch.

[Guest]

So you're not aware people avoid desktop apps for performance reasons if they require .NET or Java?

 

You avoid .NET apps because of performance reasons?

[firey]

So you're not aware people avoid desktop apps for performance reasons if they require .NET or Java?

Usually I am with you.. but I don't know anyone who purposely avoids .NET applications.  Java? Yes..  .NET no.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Sigh all you like. You are just avoiding my question.

Due to the fact that you wont give me straight answer to the question I am as asking, i will _agian_ paraphrase what it sounds like you are saying.

You appear to be suggesting that you think the framework is flawed. Can you show us where precisely the framework is flawed and what you would specifically do to improve those specific areas?

Surely if you are making that statement, you have a technical or HCI background on which to make the statement.

 

As you are avoiding providing examples or maybe because they're not any?

 

@jjkusaf like already started, Office 2013 is all WinRT or metro or whatever it is your all are arbitrarily hating on today

 

Doesn't help that Microsoft changes the name often.  Even one of the biggest proponents of Modern UI on Neowin still refers to it is Metro.  Metro > Modern > Universal? > Windows Apps ... pick your poison.

[PGHammer]

+1, and this is the point I am making.

Back in the day the idea of implementing a fully featured word processor in a GUI 'window' was considered impossible by some. Now the idea of not building it as a GUI application is considered absurd.

What most people don't seem to realise is that Win32 as an API is circling the rim. It will be deprecated in due course, and the only way to develop an application will be as a modern app.

If they didn't believe that you could build fully functional applications in this model, they wouldn't be going all in.

The strategy is clear...

Indeed it is - I know about it having found that out much earlier.

What we all seem to have forgotten (in terms of historical IT) is that mainframe computing was built largely on the backs of two programming languages - COBOL and FORTRAN. The idea that either would ever translate to a GUI was, in fact, considered laughable. Yet Microsoft had IDEs - for both - within one YEAR of the launch of Windows NT.

While I was learning all I could about PCs, there was still a large pro-mainframe contingent in IT, and this was despite NT.

However, while I started in mainframe IT, even I saw mainframes as being in trouble by the releases - one after the other - of Microsoft COBOL and Microsoft FORTRAN respectively. (Notice that I am referring to pre-Visual Studio - or Visual BASIC, for that matter. Transitory, thy name is IT.

However.. the apps are  designed for touch based input.. windowed or not.  Therefore there is a lot of wasted space when it comes to a keyboard and mouse user.  I can click on things with much better precision and ussing a smaller area than a finger.  Which also means more  can be put on a window if not designed  around touch.

They were designed for multiple forms of input - the difference is that touch is not roadblocked. In other words, you are used to thinking of traditional input where touch is NOT an option - as opposed to multiple forms of input, which allows for input via other means - including touch. Word for touch is the biggest example - despite the "for touch" moniker, you can certainly use the application without touch support.

And by making the comment the way you did, you hit upon the crux of the problem - you see the incoming wave of touch-screen users and realize that you are going to have to accommodate them, and are dreading it. Be honest - don't you think the "old heads" used to the CLI didn't think the same about GUIs in general - let alone Windows? The shoe is now on YOUR foot.

[Guest]

This thread is wonderful.

[firey]

They were designed for multiple forms of input - the difference is that touch is not roadblocked. In other words, you are used to thinking of traditional input where touch is NOT an option - as opposed to multiple forms of input, which allows for input via other means - including touch. Word for touch is the biggest example - despite the "for touch" moniker, you can certainly use the application without touch support.

And by making the comment the way you did, you hit upon the crux of the problem - you see the incoming wave of touch-screen users and realize that you are going to have to accommodate them, and are dreading it. Be honest - don't you think the "old heads" used to the CLI didn't think the same about GUIs in general - let alone Windows? The shoe is now on YOUR foot.

 

The problem is.. with a mouse you can have nice hidden menus, small 16x16 icons, lists, etc.. that don't work with touch.  With touch everything has to be big enough for freddy fat fingers and readily touchable which non-touch applications don't need.   

Progression from cli -> gui is a true progression.  No longer did we have to type commands, we had visual representation of it.. and as screen resolutions have increased we have been able to put more and more in single windows.  Our current way of using desktop applications to touch is not a progression.  It's making single screens multiple,  organized clean menus go out the window.

I'd like to see a Visual Studio designed for touch that works better than the current interface.  Or a photoshop interface that has all the power of the standard desktop interface but set for touch.. you would end up bouncing between windows because touch  has to be designed in such a way we can't fit as much on.

[PGHammer]

The problem is.. with a mouse you can have nice hidden menus, small 16x16 icons, lists, etc.. that don't work with touch.  With touch everything has to be big enough for freddy fat fingers and readily touchable which non-touch applications don't need.   

Progression from cli -> gui is a true progression.  No longer did we have to type commands, we had visual representation of it.. and as screen resolutions have increased we have been able to put more and more in single windows.  Our current way of using desktop applications to touch is not a progression.  It's making single screens multiple,  organized clean menus go out the window.

I'd like to see a Visual Studio designed for touch that works better than the current interface.  Or a photoshop interface that has all the power of the standard desktop interface but set for touch.. you would end up bouncing between windows because touch  has to be designed in such a way we can't fit as much on.

However, those same overlarge landing points are usable for more than touch - those of us that aren't experts with pointing devices (or that have less precise pointing devices - such as trackpads or touchpads) can certainly use them. That is indeed the issue with *niche* thinking - you get all comfortable with things a certain way and you can find yourself unable to think "outside the box". Those developers that want to accommodate touch WILL have to adjust their thinking; that much is certain. The question STILL remains - how important is that to developers (on all levels) going forward. All I have been saying is that remaining closed to the idea can very well be detrimental.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

However, those same overlarge landing points are usable for more than touch - those of us that aren't experts with pointing devices (or that have less precise pointing devices - such as trackpads or touchpads) can certainly use them. That is indeed the issue with *niche* thinking - you get all comfortable with things a certain way and you can find yourself unable to think "outside the box". Those developers that want to accommodate touch WILL have to adjust their thinking; that much is certain. The question STILL remains - how important is that to developers (on all levels) going forward. All I have been saying is that remaining closed to the idea can very well be detrimental.

 

Just curious, what the obsession is with touch?  Does it somehow increase productivity if you're, for example, touching the monitor to select option A and then using keyboard to type whatever command? 

 

I've used various medical devices over the past 20 years.  One of the first systems had an old green text/black background touchscreen to select a box and then you'd use a spinning knob to select the settings...very simple yet efficient.  Throughout the years, some systems I've used have been touch and others haven't.  The touchscreens were for basic functions while the standard keyboard/mouse were always for systems that needed a lot more input (like patient demographics, radiopharmaceuticals input, notes, etc.).  One of the units I work with now has both touchscreen and mouse input.  I find myself using the mouse because even if I use the touch feature I always have to input something into the keyboard (typically patient demographics, notes or other documentation).  Another system I use is touchscreen without a mouse but with a keyboard...and it is frustrating at times have to go from monitor to keyboard.

 

Aside from some systems (like ATMs and some medical equipment with a basic function)...I just don't get the overall appeal of touchscreen...especially if the programs primary input method is keyboard.  Moving arms up and down vs off to the side (mouse) just seems inefficient to me (not including devices w/o mouse and/or keyboards obviously).  

 

Now, I can understand it on tablets/phones and other devices where a mouse wouldn't be ergonomic.  

[PGHammer]

jjkusaf - the "obsession" with touch comes out of the arguments diametrically opposed to my position - not my position in and of itself.  All of the critics decrying Modern have used touch (and their antipathy toward it) in their arguments - however, some of the same things that benefit touch-screen usage also benefit pointing-device usage.  Notice that I said "pointing devices" in general - NOT mice in particular.  My issue with pointing devices is that there is a general assumption that mice in particular are being referred to.  Not all non-touch users have a use for mice - laptops and notebooks generally wouldn't, for example - they have built-in trackpads, touchpads or (at the high end) digitizers.  For such devices (as is the case for kiosks) a mouse is an option - not standard fare.

 

I didn't say (and I've never said) that additional input options don't take getting used to - I'm certainly not used to touch as a PC input option (remember, my desktop doesn't have it, and neither does either of my notebooks).  However, support of touch actually does have benefits for me, despite that (those larger landing points, for example).Would I have discovered that if I tried to "pigeonhole" touch as a strictly-mobile meme?

 

All I have ever asked is that folks keep their minds open - we haven't discovered all the benefits of touch as an input option yet (mainly due to it originally being too expensive to use as a general option) - heck, we haven't discovered all the uses of VOICE as an input option (and that predates touch, even, if not especially, on PCs).  Being fanatically closed minded leads to many places - and just about all of them are bad.

[PotatoAlchemist]

Usually I am with you.. but I don't know anyone who purposely avoids .NET applications.  Java? Yes..  .NET no.

 

So true. And from my understanding, Windows 10 based WinRT apps will be using .NET Native pretty much automatically. So that means we are ought to really gain C++ like performance. Which means there's really no excuse to avoid .NET apps altogether.

Edit: For example, in build 10056, Project Spartan, Calculator, etc etc, you name it, really starts up fast, you barely see the splash, and it already shows its contents. More optimization means better start up time and performance across all devices, even in the not so high end ones. Which I will test later today on my older computer, to see if these apps are loading faster than before, or rather fast enough to increase productivity. A step in the right direction, nonetheless.