[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[Ian W]

It clearly is.  Start is just a little shorter and moved too far right currently.  If they widen it left with the same relative width then it will match up perfectly.  Purpose has nothing to do with it.  If you understood you'd stop calling it a 'corner'.

 

Capture.PNG

cap2.PNG

They are clearly not the same size

[Dashel]

You aren't listening then, intentionally or otherwise, when you change the point of focus to when quoting others.  Its rude.  I'm (I think) clearly talking about the use of the sidebar list to display the All Apps view instead of the full screen one you have advocated for, not the current hit-area of its content items.  From the perspective of my question, your terminology is incorrect as only one axis matters.

 

See my edit, I agree the hit-area needs to be increased and the gutter removed - but under the acceptance of the vertical list view which you and certain others detract from, because its supposedly cramped by not being 'full screen'.

 

Clear enough?

[PGHammer]

i understand the enigma into this rather large and apparent feed back answer to a simple icon question as windows 8 on the whole is very unstable the UI could do with a lot more work and my thoughts are to make it border less and as transparent or transparent as the users are to see whats going on with the latest build seeing windows in different desktop sizes just means getting or putting it on a different monitor as for it cross platform mess i dont think its any good on a phone or a tab i think they should go design something else and leave wind blows to the computers the real ones like desktops and laptops well make it a bit less resource hungry for low end laptops in any case there a lot that could be put into it as well like a simplified virtual machine as i see novice users just installing it and using the new windows 10 OS as there main OS and not really thinking about it before testing it on a VM or some other equivalent virtual environment i do see your point on many or the points you made in this rather large statement your other point is you ether love it or you hate it are you comparing windows 10 to mar-mite sorry i had to get that in and as for mental health issues i am sure the drugs company's of the world are selling more drugs nowadays to silicon valley to come up this all these ideas in such a short time of circa 25 years

Not JUST to Marmite (or Vegemite, for that matter), but to OTHER polar issues (including political issues of the day) - the issue with them ALL is a lack of willingness to compromise.

[PGHammer]

Apologies, but I'm not entirely sure if you were agreeing/disagreeing or what point you were trying to make.  

 

Modern API can be included w/o causing incompatibility issues.  

 

I do not necessarily have a huge problem with Modern UI, I do not like it but really do not care if it is on the computer or not.  However, the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement (aside from 3rd party solutions) on the desktop.  Though MS is attempting to backtrack on that mistake (i.e. return of the start menu) it may ultimately help desktop/larger screens but hurt smaller screens.  

 

This is why you shouldn't have the same UI across the various devices.  Same APIs...sure...but not the same UI.

But how do you fix the UI problem without basically biasing it? By tying the UI to the device, you don't - not everyone works the same way - even on identical hardware.

Instead, go with individual user-choice - NOT device-specificity. Let individual users pick and choose. (I'm no more in favor of StartScreen as only choice than I was of Start menu as only choice.)

Part of my problem with the debate (on both sides) is attempts to push individuals toward one side or the other. (Notice that I had NO opinion on the bringbacks - despite my not using any of them.)

My ONLY opinion - on the third parties - is why step on them at all. It's not as if that segment was neglected BY the third parties. It's not Disk Optimizer vs. Diskeeper. Worse, that same sort of behavior is what got Microsoft into legal hot water before - so why is it permissible now? (That is indeed my implication by the "evil" comment - when Microsoft got dragged into court by "tying", that was, in fact, at the core of the plaintiffs' argument. So why is such behavior permissible when it comes to the UI or UX? Is it because it's YOUR bias that you want favored?)

[Jim K Global Moderator]

But how do you fix the UI problem without basically biasing it? By tying the UI to the device, you don't - not everyone works the same way - even on identical hardware.

Instead, go with individual user-choice - NOT device-specificity. Let individual users pick and choose. (I'm no more in favor of StartScreen as only choice than I was of Start menu as only choice.)

Part of my problem with the debate (on both sides) is attempts to push individuals toward one side or the other. (Notice that I had NO opinion on the bringbacks - despite my not using any of them.)

My ONLY opinion - on the third parties - is why step on them at all. It's not as if that segment was neglected BY the third parties. It's not Disk Optimizer vs. Diskeeper. Worse, that same sort of behavior is what got Microsoft into legal hot water before - so why is it permissible now? (That is indeed my implication by the "evil" comment - when Microsoft got dragged into court by "tying", that was, in fact, at the core of the plaintiffs' argument. So why is such behavior permissible when it comes to the UI or UX? Is it because it's YOUR bias that you want favored?)

 

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

To the second bold comment.  Are saying that if Microsoft had included both UIs it would have been on the same abusive level as the '98-'01 antitrust suit?  Obviously abusing monopoly power shouldn't be permissible...but do you honestly believe that your last paragraph is valid?  That is somewhat naive with regards to why they brought Microsoft into court.

[BajiRav]

chrome is my choice zilla have flash issues and its slow and this has nothing to do with a simple icon question lol when the worlds gone mad 

what?

[seta-san]

what's the chances of seeing a new version for phone this week? current version is starting to drive me nuts.

[Ian S.]

what's the chances of seeing a new version for phone this week? current version is starting to drive me nuts.

It broke my phone's group messaging (access point), but I am hopeful for a new build.

[MikeM97]

chrome is my choice zilla have flash issues and its slow and this has nothing to do with a simple icon question lol when the worlds gone mad

 

Mozilla Firefox works like a charm here , faster and better than Chrome ...

And also , what ?

[tompkin]

Is anyone else noticing that whatever you click on now in Neowin seems to bring a popup ad?  This has got to be a mistake. It's almost unusable.

 

Relating to Windows 10, hopefully the "touch-first" Office will be usable by all. Another mistake made with Windows 8 was not introducing "touch-first" Office with it. It's STILL not out!! I think Microsoft is doing right though in waiting until Windows 10 to release it. It will make the Windows 10 release that much more "exciting".

 

What will kind of be interesting is whether they will introduce a mobile version of Office and also a desktop version. If it's too "touchy", desktop users may balk. Especially, if they are currently using a previous version (Office 2010 for instance), why shell out more bucks for a version that's less friendly if there isn't more functionality or (heaven forbid) less functionality?

 

I think that Spartan is actually a good name for a browser. It conveys leanness and speed. Perfect for a browser, I would say. One thing for me..it's GOT to be on alternate platforms (Android, IPhone) and it's got to have sync so I can sync my bookmarks between Spartan on Android and Spartan on desktop. This is primarily why I use Chrome because it does this.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

One thing for me..it's GOT to be on alternate platforms (Android, IPhone) and it's got to have sync so I can sync my bookmarks between Spartan on Android and Spartan on desktop. This is primarily why I use Chrome because it does this.

 

I very much agree with this.  It's also the reason why Chrome is my browser of choice.

[DConnell Member]

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

[PGHammer]

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

To the second bold comment.  Are saying that if Microsoft had included both UIs it would have been on the same abusive level as the '98-'01 antitrust suit?  Obviously abusing monopoly power shouldn't be permissible...but do you honestly believe that your last paragraph is valid?  That is somewhat naive with regards to why they brought Microsoft into court.

No - I said the opposite; a SINGLE UI option would be that level of *evil*. The argument of both the government plaintiffs (and Netscape Communications, et. alia, on the browser developer side) was that by merely including Internet Explorer it presented an insurmountable roadblock to their own products. (Regardless of whether I agreed with the argument or not, that IS the prevailing opinion about the subject - in both legal circles and public-opinion circles.)

In other words, I want greater choice than is available today - not JUST Continuum or mini-Start. I'd actually prefer being able to pick from both (as opposed to "catchall")

[indospot Veteran]

So, something just happened on my laptop. It's been working within the expectations, but today some modern apps decided to just stop opening. Rebooting seems to fix some of them, sometimes. I can't open Store (beta), 8 Zip and a bunch of others. Any idea what I can do?

[+Zlip792 MVC]

New flags in Internet Explorer (for some reason about:flags doesn't seems to work for me in Build 10049 inside Project Spartan but does in leaked 10051).

 

[George P Global Moderator]

New flags in Internet Explorer (for some reason about:flags doesn't seems to work for me in Build 10049 inside Project Spartan but does in leaked 10051).

 

 

How's the overall performance so far for it? 

[Dot Matrix]

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

What? Where did I get a choice prior? How was Windows 8 different?

[sinetheo]

Sadly nvidia is just marginally better. Even in Windows 7 I am mindful of version numbers due to smooth scroll and hardware acceleration not working after sleep.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

 

What? Where did I get a choice prior? How was Windows 8 different?

 

Guess you forgot that the last time Microsoft made a dramatic shift in the way users interacted with their computer (3.1 > '95) you could still run progman as your default shell (up unit XP SP2).  

By XP SP2, the start menu had become mainstream so Microsoft didn't give another choice, well, since they didn't have one and users had almost 10 (from '95 release to XP SP2 release) years to get used to it.  

Before you say "but"...I think you can safely compare the dramatic shift of 3.1 > '95 and 7 > 8 with regards to how users interacted with Windows.  Doesn't matter why...just stating the facts to counterpoint your discussion.  Neither Vista or 7 included a dramatic change in the way users interacted with their computer.

Now with 10 it is as if they are trying, to hard, to mash both the start screen and start menu together in one big convoluted mess.

 

 

No - I said the opposite; a SINGLE UI option would be that level of *evil*. The argument of both the government plaintiffs (and Netscape Communications, et. alia, on the browser developer side) was that by merely including Internet Explorer it presented an insurmountable roadblock to their own products. (Regardless of whether I agreed with the argument or not, that IS the prevailing opinion about the subject - in both legal circles and public-opinion circles.)

In other words, I want greater choice than is available today - not JUST Continuum or mini-Start. I'd actually prefer being able to pick from both (as opposed to "catchall")

 

 

Sorry, still not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  /shrug.

[Ian W]

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

There was even less choice in Windows 7 as the OS offered no option to use the classic Start menu interface

[PGHammer]

Guess you forgot that the last time Microsoft made a dramatic shift in the way users interacted with their computer (3.1 > '95) you could still run progman as your default shell (up unit XP SP2).  

By XP SP2, the start menu had become mainstream so Microsoft didn't give another choice, well, since they didn't have one and users had almost 10 (from '95 release to XP SP2 release) years to get used to it.  

Before you say "but"...I think you can safely compare the dramatic shift of 3.1 > '95 and 7 > 8 with regards to how users interacted with Windows.  Doesn't matter why...just stating the facts to counterpoint your discussion.  Neither Vista or 7 included a dramatic change in the way users interacted with their computer.

Now with 10 it is as if they are trying, to hard, to mash both the start screen and start menu together in one big convoluted mess.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, still not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  /shrug.

In the case of 3.x>95, while Program Manager was present, it was deliberately buried hip-deep.

In the case of 8, the choice was offered by third-parties - NOT Microsoft itself.

I asked those that were in favor of Microsoft basically throwing the third-parties under the bus their opinion OF those selfsame third-party bringbacks - surprisingly, not one was critical of any of them (though both Classic Shell and StartIsBack had their fans). Yet they STILL wanted the choice to be from Microsoft, as opposed to those same third parties; THAT was what got me hot under the collar. Even though I didn't use them, I didn't criticize them, either.

It would be the equivalent of firing a contractor without any justification - that sends a very BAD message about your company.

Edited April 8, 2015 by PGHammer

[Jim K Global Moderator]

In the case of 3.x>95, while Program Manager was present, it was deliberately buried hip-deep.

In the case of 8, the choice was offered by third-parties - NOT Microsoft itself.

I asked those that were in favor of Microsoft basically throwing the third-parties under the bus their opinion OF those selfsame third-party bringbacks - surprisingly, not one was critical of any of them (though both Classic Shell and StartIsBack had their fans). Yet they STILL wanted the choice to be from Microsoft, as opposed to those same third parties; THAT was what got me hot under the collar. Even though I didn't use them, I didn't criticize them, either.

It would be the equivalent of firing a contractor without any justification - that sends a very BAD message about your company.

 

Progman.exe was not "buried hip-deep".  Both winfile and progman could be ran simply by Start > Run > Progman (or winfile).  Both files located within the windows directory.  Hardly "buried".  Microsoft even had a KB article explaining how to make progman your default shell.  Heck, even I ran it as a default for a couple of days.  Wasn't hard...and it was there (unlike Win 8 sans start menu)

 

Regarding the third parties.  Yes, I'd rather have a start menu built in not a third party.  I use Classic Shell in Windows 8...and though it does the job well...I'm still very well aware it is a third party (by little odd behaviors here and there)

 

If including a start menu upsets you to the point of getting hot under the collar...would you be happy if they made a plain operating system free of anything other than APIs software required?  Otherwise, aren't you throwing every third party under the bus by including x, y z program?

 

Anyway, this particular third party start menu discussion is trivial to me.  Not sure the argument or case you're trying to make.  /shrugs

[tompkin]

When Windows went from 3.1 to Windows 95 no one questioned whether the Windows 95 interface was better. In fact, those of us who were using NT 3.51 were upset because our "premiere" operating system didn't get the flying folders first.

 

For mobile, yes, the Metro interface was better. That's what it was designed for. But as a desktop OS it stunk. Especially for people that had been using the Start button for 20 years. There was nothing to help the user transition. Clippy would have been better than nothing. 

 

Here is the thing though. I actually liked Vista. I had the machine to run it right and never had problems. Windows 7 came out and people raved about it. I could have said "yea but Vista wasn't so bad!". But you know what I did? I moved on.

 

I've been using Windows 7 ever since with, again, no problems. When Windows 10 goes RTM the vast majority will download it and those who disliked Windows 8 (just like those who disliked Vista) will be happy. Again, I'm going to move on. No one is going to want to hear "Yea buts" about Windows 8 because they will have moved on.

 

From my own reading, I think we're in the "bug fix" stage with Windows 10. Most, if not all, of the user interface is fixed. So arguing about which is the better interface is fruitless. All we can do is wait.    

[sinetheo]

When Windows went from 3.1 to Windows 95 no one questioned whether the Windows 95 interface was better. In fact, those of us who were using NT 3.51 were upset because our "premiere" operating system didn't get the flying folders first.

For mobile, yes, the Metro interface was better. That's what it was designed for. But as a desktop OS it stunk. Especially for people that had been using the Start button for 20 years. There was nothing to help the user transition. Clippy would have been better than nothing.

Here is the thing though. I actually liked Vista. I had the machine to run it right and never had problems. Windows 7 came out and people raved about it. I could have said "yea but Vista wasn't so bad!". But you know what I did? I moved on.

I've been using Windows 7 ever since with, again, no problems. When Windows 10 goes RTM the vast majority will download it and those who disliked Windows 8 (just like those who disliked Vista) will be happy. Again, I'm going to move on. No one is going to want to hear "Yea buts" about Windows 8 because they will have moved on.

From my own reading, I think we're in the "bug fix" stage with Windows 10. Most, if not all, of the user interface is fixed. So arguing about which is the better interface is fruitless. All we can do is wait.

There were complainers. My aunt sorely missed program manager. Go Google groups aka usenet back in the day? Like start menu replacements there were program manager ones on how to get it back and whining how file explorer was superior etc.

[+Zlip792 MVC]

How's the overall performance so far for it? 

 

82% support with Experimental Features on ES6.

 

 

-----------------------

With ASM.js ON:

 

 

With ASM.js OFF: