For weeks – if not months – I’ve been trying to come up with a way to succinctly and accurately explain why, exactly, Windows 8 rubs me the wrong way, usability-wise. I think I finally got it.
Contrary to popular belief, Metro is not a replacement for the Start Menu. Metro is a replacement for the Explorer Shell. The Explorer Shell itself has been turned into an application. Traditional applications run within this Explorer Shell, and cannot be managed from Metro. In other words, the Explorer Shell has become an application with a multiple document interface, running in Metro.
This, right here, is the main reason why Windows 8 is such a pain to use with a mouse and keyboard. You can’t directly switch to a desktop application; you always have to first switch to the Explorer Shell, and then switch to the desktop application you want running within the Explorer Shell. This is a convoluted way of using my computer, especially since Metro itself isn’t mouse-friendly to begin with, with finicky hot corners and UI elements that are too volatile.
Consider this. To switch to a Chrome browser tab, you have to: switch to the Explorer Shell in the Metro application switcher (and hope this doesn’t go wrong), switch to Chrome in the traditional taskbar, and then switch to the right tab within Chrome. This is insanity. Whenever I go through this in Windows 8, I hear this playing in my head.
It’s not a technical issue. Microsoft could easily integrate the two much more efficiently and more fluently if they wanted to. No, the real issue is that Microsoft doesn’t want to, because (and here’s the pill that’s so tough for some to swallow) the Explorer Shell is being deprecated. It’s dead. It needs to be cumbersome and unpleasant because Microsoft hopes this will make users demand Metro versions of their favourite applications.
Trying to shoehorn a tablet/smartphone user interface paradigm into a desktop/laptop computer is just as flawed as trying to do it the other way around. Unless Microsoft has some sort of grand plan to reintroduce proper window management into Metro, I don’t see how I could ever get any serious form of work done with it.
I have the sneaking suspicion Windows 7’s going to be around for a while.
win key+D .
Oops, more than a day went by without a Windows 8 hit piece.
Woosh.
Long story short, it’ll never make you happy, and they don’t have to
24inch triple monitor setups are a minority in the Windows ecosystem and trade offs were made.
Real world statistics indicate that Windows 8 is engineered for precisely the target audience and specs of the market it hopes to capture.
And I guess I can go to hell if I’m not in that target demo?
No, but you can deal with it or not. It just serves to give context in hopes some of you can tone down the vitriol.
I guess windows 7 will be the windows 8 pro edition. I know my company has written WIn 8 off already. It seems strange to me that MS is pissing in the same pool they drink from.
Metro is just about as exciting to me as Dashboard was on OSX. Only no one expected you to get you work done in Dashboard.
It deserves vitriol because it is leaving a big hole for professionals. Even worse than Final Cut X did for video professionals.
Edited 2012-05-14 23:44 UTC
Then don’t update, I don’t know what else you want people to say.
Then Windows 9 will come, slightly polish Windows 8 like 7 did with Vista, and people will go nuts over it, proving how fickle you all really are.
Vista was bloated and slow… but it was not fundamentally switching to a interface paradigm that was hostile to power users. They are setting a course for Win 9 to be worse in that regard… not better.
I really don’t buy into this argument myself. To begin with Windows 8 is more than just Metro and its flaws, you also have the “multitasking” changes in addition to the explorer interface that has been fluglyfied. Vista’s issue was bloat and performance, but overall it was still Windows.
It’s a little crazy to believe a touch interface that is already well behind Apple and Linux(Android), has few supporting applications, and is a PITA to use on existing PC keyboard/mouse interface is somehow going to increase market share in either market. It’s more likely going to push more folks to Apple, like Vista did, and possibly into the arms of an Android/Linux desktop, assuming developers of that platform can create desirable productivity software for things like video editing, desktop publishing etc. I mean lets face it, as a developer you want customers, and today the customers on I-whatever and Android touch systems look pretty tasty if you can bring them over to the desktop. I mean, if you have to learn to develop in a new API for Metro, why not write for something else?
People who do not want windows 8 want Microsoft to change it to their liking. That is what they want. They want a company to listen to its users. Is that a bad thing?
Yes. Apparently it’s a bad thing not to react like a herd of sheep and let a monopolistic megacorporation ram a giant dildo with glass shards from a shattered Windows up your ass. We’re supposed to just blindly bend over and take it all, admit defeat on our part and that Microsoft is always right, and just move on–using Windows 8 and whatever else gets pushed at us for a couple hundred bucks on the upgrade treadmill–whether we like it or not.
Because, you know, the Almighty Corporations can never, ever be wrong, right? I mean, they’re run by some supreme beings, not just lowly imperfect mere mortal human beings such as ourselves. They know what is best for us, the planet, and the entire universe.
Edited 2012-05-16 22:59 UTC
What I want is for Microsoft to listen to their customers and offer a means of opting out of Metro in favor of the current UI/desktop. I’ve tried, really tried to like Metro. I have it installed on my laptop but I find I keep going back to my desktop more and more because having to switch back and forth from Metro to the Desktop is just too much work. I like the live tiles in Metro but could have essentially the same from gadgets on Windows 7 (at least before Microsoft did away with most of the gadgets they had listed). I like the fact that Windows 8 boots up/shuts down faster and overall seems more responsive. But I just cannot warm up to Metro and am irritated that Microsoft is unwilling to listen to its customer base. So while I’ll probably reinstall Windows 7 on my laptop, I’m also checking out Linux distros in case the day comes that I decide to ditch Windows altogether. I like the fact that at least with Linux I am offered UI choices so that I can find the one that works best for me. (Note: I consider myself a Windows fanboy in the long run but hey, sometimes you have to make a change)
My company did the same, 200k licenses Microsoft will not be collecting for any longer, there are many vendors that sell PC’s without an OS so no big deal.
If your organisation purchases 200,000 licences (or is it $200,000? please be precise rather than throwing around meaningless figures) then your organisation is run by morons because almost every enterprise customer:
1) Leases their computers and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.
OR
2) Buy their computers without an operating system and is signed up for a Microsoft licensing scheme that gives them the latest version of all their software for a set price per year.
It is clear to me that either the organisation you work for is run by morons or the scenario you gave is a load of crap – I have a hunch that it is the later rather than the former.
It’s probably 200k units of money. There are not many companies that actually have that many employees.
That said, IBM only started rolling out Win7 in 2011(skipping Vista entirely) – that’s well over 300’000 and as much as 400’000. And I can say with 100% certainty that Win8 will be skipped at at least 1 company that has more than 200k active licenses.
At $200K they would be on a Microsoft licensing scheme – pretty much all the large organisations are on it and it also allows employees to purchase Windows and Office from Microsoft at the cost of the DVD ($10 each) and they can keep using it as long as they’re employees of the company (based on my experience with the Microsoft Select Licensing Scheme that the NZ Ministry of Defence used to use).
I wouldn’t be surprised in the case of Windows 8 that they focused on Metro touch interface first and then going to work on the traditional desktop next. End of the day Microsoft has priorities and for them the desktop is ok’ish with the more pressing matter being the lack of presence in the tablet market and the lacklustre results so far with Windows Phone sales. Windows 9 will be Metro refinement, WinRT is developed to go beyond Metro so that traditional desktop applications can be based upon it and the desktop itself is further refined.
Development takes time and quite frankly Windows 8 when compared to Vista is a pretty good improvement especially when you take into account the under the hood changes being made such as WWDM improvements, kernel scalability, developer tools improvements etc.
Right. My company has an EA with MS, and we have just about 1,000 network users, but it’s still about $200K/y.
$200 per seat per year with a bulk licensing agreement…sounds high to me. MS only releases a new OS every 3 years or so, so that’s about $600 per OS instance.
A friend of mine is a microsoft distributer, I could check if he could save you licensing costs. Commerce on os-news is probably an abuse of the comments area…we’d better be quiet lest Thom brings the Holwerda Hammer out
Adam’s been here far longer than I
.
Uh, an EA covers WAY more than an OS. It covers office, our server OS instances, our SQL licensing, Sharepoint, remote user CALs, Exchange, most any other MS software e.g. Project, Project Server, Visio, Visual Studio, etc.
*If you upgrade*, it’s always a better deal than OEM or boxed.
Adam_S,
“Uh, an EA covers WAY more than an OS…”
Ok, fair enough, but you hopped on a thread that was talking about microsoft windows 8 specifically without context, and I assumed wrong. In any case I still think it’s too high, you might be able to become a MS gold partner and cut that down some.
This subthread was talking about licensing.
I’m not sure you understand how an enterprise agreement works. You took the number of users and divided our cost out to make a guess at the per user cost and then asserted that it’s a bad deal. But if you knew how an EA was structured, you’d know that it’s not a per user thing overall.
The platform CAL for a user tends to cost under $100 a year, including office, exchange, OS, and Sharepoint.
SQL Server costs about $1300/CPU for unlimited connections, but that’s recently changed to limit number of cores per CPU too.
Server OSes, middleware like Exchange, Project server, Sharepoint, MOM, System Center, etc – they all have their own cost too. Same with remote desktop CALs.
So, as you can see, you can’t decide if an EA cost is a “good deal” unless you know not only the number of users, but also the number of servers, the number of software server instances, etc.
Adam_S,
“I’m not sure you understand how an enterprise agreement works. You took the number of users and divided our cost out to make a guess at the per user cost and then asserted that it’s a bad deal.”
I’m sorry again for making the previous bad assumption, but you have to admit you failed to correct the context in which it was easy to assume you were talking only about desktop licensing costs by themselves (and as for the OP who started this discussion, we still don’t know). However I have been privy to enterprise licensing for (smaller) microsoft shops including SQL server, exchange, windows, etc, and I assure you that we did not have to pay as much per seat as you claim to be paying. Your costs should be less than ours, not more. Maybe you had significantly higher server/user ratios though. I wasn’t making it up that microsoft does give serious discounts to gold partners, although that comes with interesting restrictions like meeting minimum certification requirements for employees. Barring that, they have a silver partnership as well. But really this discussion has gone way past my interest in it, it’s not my place to get involved.
Edited 2012-05-16 15:39 UTC
I realize you don’t want to continue the conversation, but I’m not sure why you’d post that I failed at anything. I simply reported some facts.
The conversation was that someone spent $200K a year in licensing[1], and I said they should be on an EA. You assumed it was desktop licensing[2], and you still don’t know what my server costs are, because I didn’t tell you how many servers, CPU, SQL instances, etc. So you’re really not in a position to understand the value of my agreement.
[1] http://www.osnews.com/thread?518205
[2] http://www.osnews.com/thread?518246
Adam_S,
“I realize you don’t want to continue the conversation, but I’m not sure why you’d post that I failed at anything. I simply reported some facts.”
Oh please, I never said that and you know it. How many times must I apologize for making a wrong assumption? Please stop criticizing me for it!
Are you a native English speaker?
This is literally two comments up:
All I was doing is saying that an EA covers everything and that you can’t just divide the total cost by users to determine the cost per user. That’s it. I don’t know what the rest of this thread is for.
Adam_S,
“you have to admit you failed to correct the context in which it was easy to assume you were talking only about desktop licensing costs by themselves”
Oh geez, major miscommunication. Haha, I interpreted your sentence as a accusation that I was calling you a figurative failure for paying the prices you are paying. It’s still my opinion that your initial post lacked explicitness, but I’d better cut my losses on this one
Edited 2012-05-16 16:10 UTC
Or they simply manage the whole thing themselves. 200k systems is not hard to manage with Linux/Unix. It is much more difficult to manage with Windows.
$200k worth of systems is only about 100k systems; still a large order, and would still put them on a Volume License with their IT managing it.
Few large companies really want the latest software all the time. They tend to favor moving forward with the software versions at their own leisure. Regardless of if they are leasing or buying the computers.
Question: Have you read the Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreement? Probably not is my guess.
Why? Because even if you purchase the licenses via the Microsoft Volume License Agreement, it states that you still may not have 100% of the licensing rights you need to run Windows on the computer you are installing it onto, and they recommend that you still buy a license with the computer to ensure you do.
VLA simply makes it easy to do things like cloning disks, and pushing out new images so that IT can manage the systems. It also conveniently lets Microsoft double book each sale and claim yet another blockbuster release that breaks all records.
So you’re telling this forum, right now, that there is a company selling computers for $2 each?
I never said they had to upgrade to the latest version but stating that they had access to the latest version. The original claim by the poster was as follows:
Which implies that he, on behalf of his organisation obtained 200,000 copies of Windows off the shelf rather than being on a volume licensing scheme.
I have because I worked in at a school where the ministry of education negotiated a $10million agreement with Microsoft around 1-2 years before I started which gave schools pretty much an open smorgasbord to choose from when it came to software. When my old man was in the Army there was a similar arrangement with the ministry of defence which pretty much stayed static until he retired 2 or so years ago. When it comes to large businesses such as the BNZ and State Insurance – again, their agreement gives them an open portfolio for a fixed price per year and the employees can purchase Windows and Microsoft Office at a discounted price as so long as they remain employees at said organisation.
So please, don’t assume that I’m some moron on the internet pulling crap out of my backside – I do actually know what I’m talking about.
Edited 2012-05-16 05:41 UTC
That still doesn’t negate the issue of the VLA requiring a double license for each computer – the VLA you purchased and the OEM that came with it to have a full license – per Microsoft’s requirements to ensure you have fully licensed the device you are using.
Worse…you can go to Linux!
In all seriousness, this is going to finally push me to move to Linux. Although, really, its going to be less painful than my last attempt back in 2006…there is a LOT better support for the hardware that is out there, and software wise, there is a lot less compromise in the quality of available apps that run native under Linux.
People are starting to realize that they don’t NEED Windows anymore. If you give them an alternative that works better, is more secure, and is actually easier to use than Windows, they WILL switch!
8 years ago, when I attempted to run Fedora 5, installing applications was a TOTAL pain! It took me HOURS just to get Adobe Flash working and playing nice with Firefox! Now, they have one-click installations and app stores. Click on what you want, and it loads. The geeky command line stuff is still there, but the average non-geek doesn’t ever have to see it!
In short, the only thing going for Windows is MOMENTUM, and with Windows 8, they are going to kill even that advantage. By forcing people to learn a new OS regardless of what they choose, I think you will find many that are more willing to learn Linux than learn to live with Windows 8!
P.S. I don’t even want to HEAR what you guys think about Windows 9…if Windows 9 is the saving grace of MS, they are DOOMED, because by the time Win9 is released, Windows in general will be even MORE irrelevant than it is now!
Linux users are very upset with GNOME Shell and Unity. A great part of users certainly are. I don’t think going anywhere bleeding edge is useful now.
If you’re a Windows guy, just stick with 7. If you’re a Linux, I would advise to stick with RHEL/CentOS or Debian Stable.
…so, who do you think should be trying new and different things in user interfaces with the aim of a better understanding of usability issues?
maybe a lab.
but not users.
in software engineering you actually have a long period of testing before deployment, and if usability is an issue, you go back and rework.
You mean like with Microsoft and Metro?
Well, you see according to some people open source should innovate and differentiate themselves from Windows but at the same time they should not really change anything and it should still work like it always has.
These people also commonly think their personal opinions reflect the user-base at large and generally assign a disproportionate large importance to themselves.
GNOME Shell and Unity are just making themselves irrelevant. One great thing about Linux is that you have more than one desktop environment to choose. KDE, XFCE, MATE (fork of GNOME 2 in reaction to GNOME Shell), etc…
This is very true. If cinnamon would not have been created I would have dumped Linux. Kde and rest just don’t do it for me either. I am happy with cinnamon.
If you don’t like Gnome/Unity you could always use xfce or KDE or many other DEs/WMs
Why? Is there some reason why you can’t use Windows 7? Is the release of Windows 8 somehow forcing you to move to a new OS from your old one?
I personally will just continue using my Windows 7 as I have done until now and wait for 3rd parties to solve the issues I have with Windows 8.
Oh, I wish that was true. But well, just recently I upgraded the Ubuntu-installation I had running to the newest release. It started out fine, but then the installation seemed to stall. I waited for a while, then clicked on the small arrow that brings up the terminal-window and guess what? There it was, waiting for me to input stuff. Later on when the installation finished Ubuntu needed a restart, but not surprisingly things went wrong again: the system refused to boot, it would only hang there with unmountable root filesystem. Turns out there was a bunch of modules and other packages missing.
And this was all on a very standard Ubuntu installation, I hadn’t even so much as installed any custom themes on it. The only things I had installed were compilers and their relevant dev libraries. No new kernels, no binary-only drivers, no nothing like that.
My point is that I *still* often have to resort to command-line to fix stuff that gets broken for no good reason.
That would be true in a parallel dimension, possibly, but in this dimension there is nothing stopping Joe Blow from just sticking with Windows 7. And when he buys a new PC he will just learn to use Windows 8, complain about it for a while, and then do nothing about it in the end.
Why? Is there some reason why you can’t use Windows 7? Is the release of Windows 8 somehow forcing you to move to a new OS from your old one?
I personally will just continue using my Windows 7 as I have done until now and wait for 3rd parties to solve the issues I have with Windows 8.
As you’ve suggested elsewhere, Metro is a future path for microsoft. They won’t just dump the paradigm after pushing it so forcefully on people, else they’d be a bit silly.
So when people say that they may as well move to Linux, or, Lignux as i’d like to call it, they are saying that they do not want to use the metro interface for the foreseeable future of desktop computing, which is going to be around far longer then just Windows 8.
Oh, I wish that was true. But well, just recently I upgraded the Ubuntu-installation I had running to the newest release. It started out fine, but then the installation seemed to stall. I waited for a while, then clicked on the small arrow that brings up the terminal-window and guess what? There it was, waiting for me to input stuff. Later on when the installation finished Ubuntu needed a restart, but not surprisingly things went wrong again: the system refused to boot, it would only hang there with unmountable root filesystem. Turns out there was a bunch of modules and other packages missing.
And this was all on a very standard Ubuntu installation, I hadn’t even so much as installed any custom themes on it. The only things I had installed were compilers and their relevant dev libraries. No new kernels, no binary-only drivers, no nothing like that.
My point is that I *still* often have to resort to command-line to fix stuff that gets broken for no good reason.
I don’t understand your point here? You are suggesting that the command line is still needed right? but then you go on to give an example where the broblem was a geeky one – upgrading the OS. As a geek myself, I have NEVER come across any “normal” users that upgrade their OSs, have you? Usually they just ask someone like you or me to do it, right? So I fail to see where your example has merit. Perhaps you could give another…
That would be true in a parallel dimension, possibly, but in this dimension there is nothing stopping Joe Blow from just sticking with Windows 7. And when he buys a new PC he will just learn to use Windows 8, complain about it for a while, and then do nothing about it in the end.
And why not just learn a different OS? after all, we can see from the unprecedented growth of all things free and open source, that Microsoft is struggling to keep the “competition at bay.
I, as a geek have converted many, many computers over to Linux. The “normal” users computers I converted have become second nature to them, just like you say will happen for windows 8 converts.
So considering all this, why would you not suggest its a good idea to switch OSs? because its nothing to do with “ease of use”.
Edited 2012-05-16 12:23 UTC
There is nothing geeky about it. Ubuntu asks clearly if you want to upgrade and all you need to do is click on a button and enter your password.
Yes, multiple times. Not with Windows, no, but Ubuntu, yes.
Why are you asking me? I’m not telling them not to, I’m just saying that they won’t. Two completely different things. Besides, Linux simply does not work for everyone, it’s not a panacea to everything possible computer-related.
I didn’t suggest such. I just said it won’t happen.
Potential Linux users aren’t necessarily going to have someone who’ll do everything for them. I don’t know anyone who could help me with my Linux problems, but pretty much everyone knows a Windows user able to install, upgrade and configure the OS. Even if there isn’t anyone who’ll sort it out for free, they can always take their PC to a local computer shop if it’s running Windows.
I’m a pretty experienced computer user, but as more of a GUI fan than a CLI junkie I often still find using Linux a real challenge. I think I must have spent at least 50 hours trying to install and configure Linux on my Thinkpad, and I still haven’t got it 100% working. At the moment I’m struggling with a kernel module dependency problem that’s stopping me from using a particular configuration utility.
I’ve never managed to get Linux running properly on any system without at least a good few hours of research and tweaking. There are still lots of things accomplishable with a few mouse clicks in Windows that require the CLI and config file editing in Linux.
My point is that Linux’s “ease of use” is a very thin veneer over a complex OS. Even “normal” users can be exposed to its complexity if they haven’t got their own personal sysadmin on hand. People often struggle with Windows, despite easy to follow GUI based help to guide them through screenshot by screenshot. They aren’t going to have much luck with a typical Linux howto, where a much higher level of knowledge is assumed, and use of the CLI is essental.
I might be wrong, but even if Windows 8 is hated I can’t imagine large numbers of normal people moving to Linux.
Dave_K,
I agree with all your points.
When linux works out of the box, which it often does, it is great even for amateur users. But any time there are driver or configuration problems it can degenerate into a hopelessly complex nightmare due bewildering array of howtos, config files, lack of GUI tools. For example, the X11 stuff is so much more complex than it should be that I curse any time I have to make adjustments to it.
However I don’t think it’s fair to compare a windows system that was pre-built and pre-debugged at the factory against a linux system that was installed at home and you are the first to test it on your combination of hardware. Of course the pre-built windows system should just work, but then a pre-built linux system should too. Linux is held to a much higher expectation because it’s expected to run out of the box on arbitrary hardware. Somestimes it falls short of that higher expectation (forcing users to fix things themselves at the command line), but this would happen far less often if linux were installed / supported by the vendors.
You’re right that it’s not a fair comparison, but it is the real world situation, and it isn’t going to change any time soon. The hypothetical people who’d consider switching to Linux due to Metro would be faced with installing the OS themselves. Even if they were buying a new system, Linux isn’t an option from most PC retailers.
Personally I’ve always built my own PCs and installed the OS myself. Installing Windows has consistently been an easy and problem free experience, but even after checking my hardware on a Linux compatibility database beforehand, I’ve still struggled to get Linux running smoothly.
Of course that still isn’t a fair comparison, not with hardware manufacturers designing their products for Windows. But pointing out who’s to blame doesn’t change how complex and user hostile Linux can be.
Dave_K,
I’m still agreeing with all your points. There’s not much more to say about it really. I do think there are more average people willing & able to try linux despite these issues. I predict linux will continue to grow as long as consumers can install it and try it on their hardware, though that might be coming to and end.
“Go to hell” is a bit strong don’t you think? I’ve been using it on a daily basis as my workstation since the Build conference last September and it’s just not that bad.
It’s like anything else…its takes a couple of days to get a new install setup with all of your tools and then it works just like you think it would.
I hardly even notice the metro parts…and I’ve started using the windows key more when I use win7 or 2K8. (Hit win and start typing…it’s nice.)
I’ve started using powershell for anything and everything since you can finally do that on windows. Honestly, it’s much better than it is worse.
With 3 (or even 2) monitors, the classic Windows desktop is always shown, so your shortcut is unneeded.
This would actually make Win8 less bothersome for super -power users.
Does it really? Interesting. +1
> 24inch triple monitor setups are a minority
If the OS treats some (even a minority) users as second class (consider designers, IDE users and others who need lot’s of screen estate) – off to garbage should go such OS.
Edited 2012-05-15 00:44 UTC
So that “power user guy” in the video is not in the target audience…
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/a-real-user-proves-windows-8…
Note that the music playing in Thom’s head does not really fit the experience we can watch here. But you can play both videos simultaneously.
Touchscreens below 10″, which is what metro is best fitted for, are a minority too. I understand that Windows 8 is Microsoft’s attempt to break google’s and apple’s dominance in the tablet/smartphone market but by doing this they sacrifice the customers that just want a general purpose os to run on their desktop and laptop comupters.
Thom, your article is slightly inaccurate as it deduces that the the traditional desktop shell is not an application when in fact it is (it’s just explorer.exe).
In fact you used to be able to change what app to use as the shell quite easily in system.ini (change the value “shell”).
[edit]
After a quick google it seems you can still replace explorer.exe as the shell even on Win7. The setting is now in the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon
Edited 2012-05-15 09:38 UTC
exactly what I’d already said – ‘cept yours was the “concise” version..
Ah sorry, didn’t spot your comment in threaded view.
For what it’s worth, you got more up votes anyway
Regardless, the new Start screen, charms, etc. can’t be a replacement for explorer.exe because they are part of explorer.exe. They are not a new shell, but rather just a set of new features added to the existing shell.
The future computer is you smartphone. Desktops will no longer exist in a few years. The smart phone will plug into a dock then you will be able to manage it via a keyboard and mouse. Good Luck guys.
Let me know when a phone can handle my After Effects projects, because that is the day desktops are dead to me…. I don’t see that happening for a long time.
Edited 2012-05-18 22:01 UTC
Maybe not phone per se… but, as far as the overall topic of this discussion goes (~Metro and future touchscreen-oriented UIs) – I can imagine “Metro 3.0” + a display descended from MS Surface 2.0 (tilted at some comfortable angle, like the drawing tables before CAD software came along) as being awesome, also with software fulfilling the function of After Effects.
(in fact, I suspect that’s the long term plan of MS, with their apparent “forcing” of, a bit)
And probably before the end of this decade.
You have been reading too much marketing material. Computers will keep becoming cheaper and easier to make and they will be getting smaller and smaller. So there will be a computer in everything you have like clothes, hardware, food, furniture, house etc. There will be no single device that does everything. All the computers will simply work together. The trend you see in phones with integrating more and more features and functions will not continue. You can already see a split with readers and tablets. Next phones will probably become smaller and will be used with small tablets.
This may sound as me stating a fact but this is my opinion.
Plus there already were predictions of “one computer to rule it all” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer_revolution#The_Home_Comp… ) …and we already know, for a fact, that something quite a bit different happened and is still happening: more and more stuff gets its own computer, microcontrollers (often more powerful than home computers of old days) are hidden everywhere around us.
(that said, I think there is huge market for “large phone” / “small tablet” at least in developing places – people there tend o be more frugal about the amount of consumer toys they get; it will also finally give real purpose to those BT headsets …and/or a simple GSM phone can be hidden in the headset)
Microsoft is a huge company. They can afford to create Vista’s and Metro’s that will ultimately become refined. Whey they have to do it in the most offensive and expensive way possible? They have a lot of cash lying around.
That’s the way everyone does it. Gnome? redesigns the entire DE, changes the whole damn thing, and they still working on getting it right. KDE? Took them until 4.4 to get really useful. Unity? Holy crap, the things an unholy amalgam of OS X and Gnome 3. OS X? it took OS X until 10.2 to be truly usable, ask any OS X user who used 10.0 and 10.1.
That’s the way things are done these days, MS is not the first, or the worst offender.
The old desktop is there, and Metro can be mostly ignored if you want. IT pretty much has to be right now, as there are no killer apps for it.
You mention the interface changes with Linux but you didn’t mention that the user has the ability to choose alternative UIs that are closer to earlier versions of Gnome and KDE (MATE, Cinnamon, LXDE, Xfce, etc.) as well as the new UIs (Gnome 3.x, KDE 4.x, Unity). With Windows, you have three choices: Microsoft’s way (Metro), remain with an earlier version of Windows, or ‘take a hike’. I love Windows but am beginning to become frustrated that Microsoft refuses to listen to those that want the option to retain the Desktop UI with ‘START’ button (turning off Metro completely). I’m wondering just how bad their ‘wake-up call’ will be when Windows 8 Metro is released into the wild!
The bigger you are the harder you fall. Don’t think something is too big to fail because it is not true. The cost of maintaining such a large company is enormous when the cash stops coming in they will need to shrink very quickly.
It strikes me as weird that every time an OS comes out with a different desktop it receives so much hate and frustration. KDE, GNOME Shell, Unity, Metro… They all get dumped on, even before they hit the download mirrors. I get that it does things differently and you might not like it, but then why complain about it? Why not simply file a bug report and not use it? Why complain on a tech blog or on a comments section that the developers will never read? It seems like such a waste of time and energy.
I don’t like all the new desktops coming down the pipe, but when I see a change I dislike I file a bug or feature ticket (for minor things) or switch to one of the many other desktops (for major issues). We, as computer users, have so many options these days it seems foolish to get so bent out of shape over one.
I have no earthly idea why you come to OS News, but I come here to discuss technology. If it sounds like complaining to you, I think it’s you who’s in the wrong place.
I am all for discussion, weighing pros and cons, benchmarks, etc. I think that is great. What I think is pointless is the endless gripping and pointless raging.
I’m sure you can tell the difference between, “I tried Metro and found I didn’t care for the new approach. I find the mouse behaviour unintuitive because…. and have so informed Microsoft,” as opposed to, “Metro is an unholy mess and I will never use Win8!”
One is rational and helpful and can give others insight into an upcoming technology. The other is childish and tells us much more about the poor communication and life skills of the poster. Yet, sadly, the latter is what we regularly see, on OSAlert and other tech forums.
I just wish most people put half as much effort into explaining their opinions and providing the developers with feedback as they do ranting.
I agree that “OMG Win 7 is a train wreck” is a pointless comment, but your original post doesn’t seem to address that (or perhaps your first post wasn’t clearly worded?). You said, “Why not simply file a bug report and not use it? Why complain on a tech blog or on a comments section that the developers will never read?”
A complaint can be very clear, detailed, and dispassionate, and a well-written complaint sheds insight on the problems with an OS relative to its competitors. I find that valuable and interesting. If people “simply filed a bug report”, we would miss all of the interesting discussion here.
So I’ll overlook a few childish whines to get to the good points that come along often enough to bring me back.
But in all fairness, any OS where I had to google to find out how to get back to the program launcher is pretty much a train wreck. Seriously.
Well put!
So it isn’t just one, it is all the ones you mentioned above, at least from my point of view.
The only desktop I still find decent is OS X (including ML)
Else stick with an older version (like Windows 7) or with a fork, like Gnome Mate.
“Contrary to popular belief, Metro is not a replacement for the Start Menu.”
Huh? Since when was the “popular belief” outside of Microsoft HQ and their marketing department that Metro is a replacement for the Start menu? You lost me on that one. The Start “screen” and Metro itself is a joke, in my opinion.
“This, right here, is the main reason why Windows 8 is such a pain to use with a mouse and keyboard. You can’t directly switch to a desktop application; you always have to first switch to the Explorer Shell, and then switch to the desktop application you want running within the Explorer Shell. This is a convoluted way of using my computer, especially since Metro itself isn’t mouse-friendly to begin with, with finicky hot corners and UI elements that are too volatile.”
Yes… yes it is. IMO Windows 8 sucks. I wasn’t able to run it too long before it sent me kicking and screaming back to Linux–almost ANY Linux distribution. Well, anything that’s not GNOME 3, that is.
“It’s not a technical issue. Microsoft could easily integrate the two much more efficiently and more fluently if they wanted to. No, the real issue is that Microsoft doesn’t want to, because (and here’s the pill that’s so tough for some to swallow) the Explorer Shell is being deprecated. It’s dead. It needs to be cumbersome and unpleasant because Microsoft hopes this will make users demand Metro versions of their favourite applications.”
Which effectively Renders Windows dead as a doorknob to me.
Edited 2012-05-15 00:40 UTC
Oh, please…
Like a Linux fanboy was SERIOUSLY considering switching to Windows 8. LOL
It might come as a surprise to you, but I was once a Windows user. I’ve kept copies of Windows 98SE and Windows XP around just to play with (often in virtual machines), and there are certain programs that I still miss to this day (mostly audio players). These days I tend to play around wtih them in Wine, although it’s still not perfect. With the Windows desktop becoming a dead end, at least the Wine guys shouldn’t have to be chasing a constantly-moving target. And no, with all the crap mentioned in the article, plus Microsoft’s forcing out of all other operating systems except their own on ARM platforms, among other things, I would *not* buy Windows 8.
But if I had money to burn, I wouldn’t mind buying Windows 7. Too bad Win7 Professional (which you need if you want to use more than 16GB RAM–you know, future-proof your machine) costs a whopping 300 bucks–hell if I’m going to spend that much for a newer version of the same operating system developed by the same company that continues to disappoint with their newly-resurrected abusive powers (which they seemed to at least restrict to a degree when the United States government was watching them). There are still some uses for Windows 7–a few Windows-only games, especially. The main thing I don’t like is how starting with Vista, they decided that you’re not allowed to use the “classic” Start menu any more.
Of course, Windows 8 has a hell of a lot to despise. If they’re not going to include DVD or Blu-Ray codecs, for example, they might as well completely remove their “protected video path” garbage, which was ONLY ever put in Vista to begin with because the movie corporations backing Blu-Ray wanted it enabled to allow strong DRM that extends to the hardware. Now that both DVD and Blu-Ray movies will need separate codecs to be bought and installed, just watch–I bet they’ll keep the protected video path anyway.
And that’s not including how much of a nightmare in general it is to use the traditional desktop (which is what I would use) in Windows 8 to begin with, as this article is all about.
Edited 2012-05-15 01:33 UTC
I don’t care if you were once a Windows user. The “I tried Windows and went running back to Linux” is typical Linux fanboy sloganeering, once common on Slashdot back in the day.
The fact that you “went running back to Linux” means that you represent less than 1% of computer users (not that that’s bad in and of itself) and you do not represent Windows 8 target audience. I don’t think Microsoft cares what Linux devotees have to say about Windows 8.
Many Linux users also use or have to use Windows. Certanly when Vista came out I intended to update XP but didn’t because it was so awful and waited for Windows 7 (which is OK).
I’m buying a new box shortly it will run Ubuntu and I think I keep running Window 7 for a while.
Well, hey, it’s my preference. There are a few things I like about Windows (NOT counting: ME, Vista, 8), but overall they, the cost, and Microsoft’s monopolistic business practices are enough to make me prefer Linux. The way Windows 8 is set up really did send me the opposite direction–I couldn’t stand it. My first computer (besides the Apple IIe) came with Windows 95 and I stayed with Windows until XP, until I finally switched in late 2006–almost a decade with Windows.
I’m not afraid to slam Microsoft for their business practices or their duds that they’ve released (and are getting ready to release), and I’m not afraid to compliment them when they do something right for a change with their operating system. Hell, I slammed GNOME 3 in my first post–and that’s about as Linux/open source as you can get. I could slam the hell out of Ubuntu as well, but I honestly don’t feel like it. Bottom line, Ubuntu has sucked IMO for several releases now (if I remember right, 8.04 or 9.04 was the last good release), and I’ll leave it at that.
I’ll slam whatever deserves it–and traditionally, it seems that every other version of Windows Microsoft releases sucks. Only 8 is special in that it sucks for trying so hard NOT to be Windows.
Edited 2012-05-16 01:13 UTC
Where are you getting Windows 7 Pro 64-bit from? You can get the OEM version from Amazon for $139.
And be completely locked from ever installing that copy of Windows on another machine. I’ll pass on OEM copies like it’s syphilis or something, thanks anyway…
Actually, once I saw the Asus Eee Pad Transformer, I thought that would be great with a real OS on it. That OS would just have to be Windows, since Android, while a decent phone OS, isn’t much good for tablets and is really bad for a laptop. I thought Microsoft would come up with something here. Evidently not.
I think KDE has the right idea for flexible UIs, but it won’t get there until we have modern, open hardware with good driver support. Unfortunately, it’s some years off:
http://makeplaylive.com/
Oh man, oh man. Maybe other planets are weird that way, but here, there are lots and lots of us, who don’t just work or use one OS. E.g. I use Windows a _lot_ more – when counting in hours – than Linux, I still like the latter about two thousand times more. I don’t see anything special about that. And yes, I still consider switching to Win8, a step which will be decided as soon as I see the release version of this current smelling load of crap that they call Win8.
Technical folk such as frequent OS News tend to use a lot of different operating systems. I spend a LOT of time in Ubuntu (wrote a book there), SUSE and Red Hat (use them heavily at work), and Windows 7 (mostly at work, though we have a lone Win 7 desktop at home). I also use iOS (on a classic iPad), Maemo (on my beloved N900), and Haiku, Mint, Android and Win 8 in a VM just because I can.
So yes, when Microsoft puts out a stinker (say, Vista), folks here may make a deliberate decision to avoid it (I did). And when Microsoft puts out something serviceable like Win 7, folks here may make a deliberate decision to use it at least part time (I did).
And Win 8 looks VERY much like the former at this point, your snarky comment notwithstanding.
They hate it when you call them out.
It’s like the Mac OS Classic environment that ran within its own space when OSX was first released.
Thanks for referencing. I was trying to figure out the name of that tune for long time
you could have made your points more succinctly, but I get them
– connecting explorer to metro doesnt work
– microsoft is okay with it, possibly because they want everyone to switch to metro anyway
good work. I would have also accepted:
– multiple simultaneous window managers is a retarded idea
– metro touchscreen interface as desktop mouse interface is a retarded idea
– microsoft is retarded
We all know that. That is why you should be using Linux Mint. Ha
How blind is everyone. I keep saying it. No one listens. It is so obvious. Whether it works or not here is what Microsoft and Apple are up to:
In the next version of OS X you will need to enable the ability to allow you to install Applications that come from anywhere but the App Store. How long do you REALLY think that ability to enable installs from anywhere but the App Store is going to be around? One or two more versions?
Now, Microsoft, not to be outdone, has said the only place you can install Metro Apps from is their store. And they’re pushing this Metro interface, and making it a total pain in the ass to use your desktop. Put 1+1 together. They want nothing more than to deprecate the Desktop interface and go Metro only.
The only plan to fix this is to get everyone developing Metro apps.
I had Fedora, Windows 7, and OS X installed in the house and used them all almost daily. Call me paranoid, but, “War on General Computing” is _exactly_ what I see going on here.
I installed Fedora on all my systems and completely removed OS X and Windows. I will not pay to lose functionality of my computer. I watch media on Fedora, I play games on Fedora (I lost one of 13 or 14 games because Starforce doesn’t work, oh well too bad, so sad), and I work on Fedora. To watch Netflix I bought a Roku which also happens to stream just fine from Linux using Plex.
Like I said, it may not pan out the way they want, but open your eyes to the future they are dreaming of and are certainly trying to steer towards.
xaoslaad,
“How blind is everyone. I keep saying it. No one listens. It is so obvious. Whether it works or not here is what Microsoft and Apple are up to:”
I voted you up because your overall message is right: closed computing currently being shoehorned by the most powerful corporations today is going to rip away so much of the open computing progress we’ve made in these past several decades.
However I don’t like your generalizations about “everyone” being ignorant and blind. There are others who are fighting for open computing too. Insulting us or the people you are trying to convince is counterproductive. It just sucks that we’re not important enough to make a real difference. It’s good to have more visible people like Wozniak in this “war on computing”, since he just might be able to spearhead this issue into the public media. I’m not confident that anyone is going to be able to stop the erosion in computing rights, but every voice helps.
Edit: I do wonder about Steve Wozniak’s convictions given his relationship to apple. However he might be a sort of Warren Buffet in trying to fix bad corporate behaviors even though they are beneficiaries.
Edited 2012-05-15 02:43 UTC
You are right of course, that it is a gross generalisation. But Thom is writing about how he wonders if there is something in store to fix the desktop interface. I seriously doubt it. I believe it is broken by design.
Again maybe I am being paranoid, but the changes coming from both sides really seem to make it clear that everything they are doing is deliberate and intentional with the end goal of have closed ecosystems where they approve all apps and take a chunk of the profit for every sale, whether deserved or not.
It is frustrating and I wonder why it isn’t called out more. I guess some of that is that there is no ‘proof’, but it is still troublesome to watch.
xaoslaad,
“Again maybe I am being paranoid, but the changes coming from both sides really seem to make it clear that everything they are doing is deliberate and intentional with the end goal of have closed ecosystems where they approve all apps and take a chunk of the profit for every sale, whether deserved or not.”
For me there’s absolutely no doubt about it. Slowly but very surely we’re loosing access to our own computers, and the pace of that trend is increasing. Corporations are assuming more access and imposing more restrictions on end user devices they weren’t previously entitled to. They are continually testing the waters and because governments have been extremely lenient they go further and further each time. Pretty soon there’s going to be no way for any new competing app stores to come into existence because the majority of consumers will be using locked up hardware/OS platforms.
Edited 2012-05-15 04:29 UTC
Your comment got me thinking: what is “General Computing?”.
Well, first, your statement was read while in bed with my tablet. But the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to respond. I’ve responded to comments with the tablet before, but even with the keyboard attachement, I prefer getting up out of bed, walking into the next room, sitting down at the computer, and navigating to the website.
Then, after finding your comment and hitting reply, I realized I wanted to see your comment while replying, so I backed up, opened Notepad.exe and typed my response in that with your comment floating behind and above it.
And all that was just to reply to an internet comment. If Windows 9 were to come about, where Metro is the only choice and there was no windowing system, I might have stayed in bed and not have bothered to reply. This would especially be the case if my keyboard and mouse were depreciated and made incompatible as well. I would not value my desktop as a desktop if it were just a big floating touch screen. There wouldn’t be any point in having one. If for whatever reason access to an traditional computer were made impossible… I’d just have a tablet, and dream of better days.
Of course, even before we get to the point that everyone here seems to assume is the future, Microsoft has to avoid pissing off a lot of people. Apple doesn’t have this problem because most of their customers are hip trendy people who either do nothing, or are big enough fans that they don’t mind this stuff getting in the way of their work (which is probably art related).
So lets imagine a construction company, where the only computers that are available are big floating touch screens with no mice and keyboards. For the people that regularly go onto the construction site, where things are very dirty, those screens would get cloudy very fast. For the architects or drafters or BIM specialists (me), we’d have to somehow work with Revit or Autocad or Navisworks with a touch screen. Autodesk might try to optimise for it, but these programs are so in-depth and complicated that there’s no way it would be nearly as usuable as they are today.
The place where I work is not upgrading to Windows 8. If Windows 9 is more of the same, we’ll skip that too. The construction industry is huuuge, and totally dependant on Windows and Autodesk software to get the job done. And our sector is just one of many that will skip Windows 8.
So don’t worry, Microsoft will get the message and not go all the way. At the worst, we’ll just have to deal with Metro for a while. I’ve run it myself on my laptop… it’s not terrible (ignore my rant about Metro earlier on this site).
The benifits of using it seem to outway the problems for an advanced user. Someone leery of computers, like a lot of my peers at work, will not see Metro making things easier for them. They won’t be able to turn off the start screen with the registery like I would be able to, and our IT guy is certainly not going to bother installing Windows 8 on all of our machines just so that he can then turn off Metro.
The only people who will be buying this is your fellow geek, trendy hipsters, and whoever happens to be stuck with a Windows 8 machine… assuming those sell at all. It could be a disaster. And if it is one, then rejoice, because that’ll be the death of whatever dystopian OS fantasies you’re having about touch screen interfaces taking over the world and killing the computer.
Edited 2012-05-15 02:49 UTC
Apple doesn’t have this problem because most of their customers are hip trendy people who either do nothing, or are big enough fans that they don’t mind this stuff getting in the way of their work (which is probably art related).
Would you like to get off your anti-apple hobby-horse and get a dose of reality?
I write software for a living and have done for 40 years. I’ve dumped Windows at home apart from the system I have to use for work. I write for Unix(AIX), Linux, Windows and even Z/OS at times. I choose to use OSX because it works for me. I’m hardly a hip trendy type, I’m more grumpy old man but after having tried the Win 8 preview, I have to agree with Thom. Win 8 is broken by design.
I think that many more average users will vote with their feet and move away from Windows. IMHO more than 50% will move to OSX. These won’t all be hip or trendy people that is for sure.
Meh!
Sure, and in the netbook years, when it was obvious that Vista wasn’t good enough, everyone switched to Linux.
I’m all for non-Windows OSs getting more love, even if Apple’s stuff in particular gives me headaches, but let’s take lessons from the past shall we ? People are not going to dump their daily work OS and re-learn all of their everyday habits just because they don’t like the latest release. They will simply find a way to stick with the old release, exactly as happened with Windows XP.
Edited 2012-05-15 06:53 UTC
Exactly, because normal people have more important things to do with their life, as caring about OS religion debates.
Perhaps. Of course, Symbian and Windows Mobile are so entrenched in the smartphone world that we know THAT will never change – and after iOS ignored the obvious precedents and took over the smartphone world, how many articles did you read about how Android would never make a dent in iOS sales?
An alternate scenario is that the rise of web apps reduces the value proposition for Windows to the point that many people CAN switch, if an alternate platform receives some serious marketing dollars behind a compelling story. Bombers dropping ARM-based Ubuntu ultra laptops, TVs, and hybrid smartphones, per chance?
I’m not arguing that Windows WILL lose control of the desktop, but “it didn’t happen with Vista” isn’t a compelling argument that “it can’t happen with Metro”.
Yes, it can.
And if Windows goes the way of IE, and competition returns to desktops and laptops as it has to the web, it will be a Very Good Thing for the industry and its customers alike.
I do not say that it can’t happen, but that it will take more than a single failed release with competitors that just stand still and offer no seriously compelling alternative.
You actually picked interesting examples with IE and Windows Mobile, because they illustrate that once they have reached the position of a major market actor, Microsoft can just leave their products stagnating and rotting for years before they start to lose some serious market share.
Symbian was killed by Nokia’s own stupidity. They could have kept it for much longer if they actually took the time to clean up and refactor their faulty codebase instead of hiring that Elop chimp that just waved his arms screaming “Doom ! Doom !” while proposing an inferior product as an alternative.
So I stand my point that if Microsoft just pull a Vista with Windows 8, then understand their mistake and get a polished version released in no time (as happened with Win7), I am pretty sure that people will forgive. Only if they try to Metroize things for a very long time, in spite of obvious signs of failure, will they start to lose market share.
I agree, although (1) I don’t think Microsoft’s desktop competitors are standing still any longer by any stretch of the imagination, and (2) I think the alternatives are already quite compelling, what’s needed is a brilliant marketing campaign to catch the market’s imagination.
It is because people don’t rely on their phones to do their job. Those who did at the time are blackberries users, and as you can see, they basically managed to keep their market share until 2010, and their unit shipment start decreasing only in 2011:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-17/tech/29964818_1_coll…
http://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/rim-q2-2011-…
But people where relying on blackberries only for emails. That stuff is easily replaceable. It is less true for the gazillions of applications used in the industry (like Autocad…). And this is why Linux on the desktop has failed, and OSX share is stagnating.
MacOS X? they’ll gain a bit, but I suspect that Windows 7 will just end up being the next Windows XP.
50%!? That would be quite a shift. Windows (and before that DOS) has enjoyed a huge percentage of users for at least two decades. Apple, even now, is just hanging on in the teens percentage range. Most of Apple’s customers are iPhone users rather than actual Mac users. Apple recognizes this and is responding in kind.
If you’re lucky, Apple won’t completely kill their Mac Book Pro line. But I hear the 17in model is definitely on its way out, as well as the Mac Pro tower.
So 50% of PC users running off to a company that might just kill off it’s own line of PCs… hmmm probably not.
Edited 2012-05-15 11:29 UTC
More importantly, it’s unlikely that Apple will hold 50% of the desktop market due to their business model. They earn insane profit margins instead. (Not a bad business model, mind you, but not the volume story.)
Windows has dominated the desktop because any manufacturer can build Windows desktops. Android has taken 50% of the smartphone market with the same strategy.
So a viable challenger for 50% of the desktop market will likely be one that also allows anyone to use its OS to build products – i.e., not Apple.
people dont care much about much.
people dont care that content producers and distribution networks are merging. or that they pay for things that dont cost money. or that government makes illegal laws. or that there are people with horrible lives because we have good lives. the power abuse is so gentle. it is a bit like star wars. the part before the good movies.
People are not blind to it on this forum. Most here actively way the options of various platforms. That does not automatically mean that open source is the best solution for them.
For me OSX or Win 7 works with a preference towarda OSX. Win 8 is going to be a non starter…. OSX’s iOSness thus far does not help me much, but at least it manages to stay out of my way. App signing is not inherently bad as long as the user can control over it.
I used to run OS/2 when it suited me more than windows. I certainly would migrate to Haiku, Linux, or BSD if things pan out badly. Something is going to have to cater to advance users and content creators.
For the record… I don’t think the war is on general computing. I can do that on my iPad. The war is on advanced computing where I am working with multiple tools and documents at the same time in a fluid manner.
Edited 2012-05-15 04:06 UTC
I agree, but the public has embraced this approach. And Apple’s stock value is due in large part on getting a 30% cut on all iOS software sales, so naturally they’ll bring that model to OSX. And Microsoft figures, “We might as well follow Apple’s example and get a 30% cut of all sales of Windows software.”
Yes, the era of “general computing” is coming to an end. That’s the REAL meaning of “post-pc” era.
What’s with geeks’ obsession with the end of things? Do people just do it so they can be known as the “one who called it”? Is it the same thing that gets religion nerds interested in eschatology and the “end times”?*
The evolution of humans were not the end of chimpanzees.
This is just speciation – the same kind of thing that happened when GUIs came out. The command line still lives on and has its own niche. As will traditional file cabinet/desktop metaphor interfaces. As did the original dumb terminal/central mainframe when it speciated into what is now “cloud computing”.
The end times aren’t coming – it’s only borders being redrawn.
* I hereby invent the new psychological condition known as the “Prophet Complex”. Similar to the “Messiah Complex”, but with a distinct lack of optimism about being the saviour, resigning themselves to second place as the one who predicts the saviour…
BS. They support side-loading.
BS back at you:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-8-app-store-will-be-the-…
Your reference please?
I have heard for ‘Enterprise Customers’ there will be alternatives to the store, but that’s not John and Jane Q. Public, now is it.
So again, your reference please?
On the desktop, yes, but on Windows RT, no. So technically, you’re both right and wrong.
And I think I saw a mention somewhere that Microsoft doesn’t support side-loading of Metro-applications even on the desktop, only regular applications, though I it may just be a rumour, too. Would be nice to get a confirmation on this in either direction.
EDIT: Nevermind, xaoslaad already provided a link to confirm that.
Edited 2012-05-16 01:26 UTC
After working with Windows 8 on my laptop, I’ve been trying out different Linux distros and find they’re not that bad! I’ve got VirtualBox running with Ubuntu 12.04 with the Cinnamon UI. I plan to try Mint 13/Cinnamon as well as Fedora 17/Gnome 3.x. While I’ll probably stick with Windows 7 on my main desktop, it’s interesting to see what other options are out there which I may use on some older computers I have. I was surprised to find that even the new Linux UIs (Gnome 3, Unity, Cinnamon, etc.) are intuitive and easy to use (at least they work in a way my mind does which Metro does not. That’s just my opinion BTW).
Hey Thom, good selection of the music theme.
If the shells is changeable, in all windows versions from NT4 to windows 7 i have been able to replace explorer as a shell with litestep and the file manager with total commander. Can this no longer be done? If it is still possible, i do not see a problem with windows 8 as i will not be using either metro or explorer anyways.
I think it depends if your using metro or not. I really hope the windows 8 “desktop” isn’t restricted, but I don’t think it will be on x86. In the previews the ridiculous start menu changes could be reverted back using a registry hack.
Actually Microsoft removed that capability completely in the latest release. You can not bring Start-menu back even with editing registry.
There are some 3rd-party Start-menu applications available, I personally tried the one from Stardock myself. Unfortunately it was not as good as the Start-menu on Win7 which by itself isn’t all that good to start with anyways.
An insightful post, and it got me thinking:
Is there an official statement from Microsoft stating how they expect people to “get work done” in Windows 8?
I’m currently using Haiku, and spent the last four hours doing some work in it (but my following example could have been in Windows 7 or whatever). I was programming, which meant having text editors open to look at examples and web browser windows open to read the API. I’m notified of new email with a notification icon, and if someone sends me a message a chat window will popup.
I assume in Windows 8 you’ll be notified of new email and chat messages by tiles on Metro, which seems ok. As for the rest of my example, does Microsoft expect these users to continue using Windows 7? Or, to use applications designed for the desktop mode of Windows 8? Or, to use a Metro application that has an MDI?
Has Microsoft said anything about it?
Edited 2012-05-15 04:10 UTC
The question no one asks is:
Why do we need a Windows release geared towards Metrosexuals?
Hm… Let me follow this logic here.
Since OSX is rather homogeneous in it’s appearance, it’s geared towards homosexuals?
Since Linux is very heterogeneous in it’s appearance, it’s geared towards heterosexuals.
Since Win8 sports Metro, it’s geared towards metrosexuals.
(And I still use Linux…)
There is no logic. Only word play.
Trust you to find the logic in word play.
There is logic in wordplay
And what else did you expect from a person showing “intellectual stagnation”?
Well, we all started out with a standalone DOS box …
Does that make a machine-2-machine interface a robosexual (BMSMA)
It is a technical issue as it looks more like a bug.
I can do what you described pretty easily using the keyboard (toggling between the desktop, classic and metro apps using alt+tab). Then I could ctrl+tab to my hearts content in Chrome.
But the classic apps won’t appear seperately on the left side tasks panel. Only the one instance of Windows classic desktop.
Windows 8 is pretty comfortable use with a mouse and keyboard. I use it everyday.
If you want to do a ranticle on Windows 8, do one on the lack of Flash on the Metro IE10 and the incoming Internet shitstorm about it. Also Facebook won’t like it. And Youtube seems to be taking their sweet time to convert their site into pure HTML5. lol
Hear this, Hear this. A million times Hear this. Can we stop with the “I got a boo-boo with Win8” whining and create actual stories? Win8 does very fine with mouse and keyboard. We should be discussing more interesting problems, mentioned in a glimpse here, of how MS is working to create their onw walled garden on Windows RT.
Try hitting the small charm on a multi-display setup.
Issue only affects users with multiple monitors. Let’s see what changes MS did with the possible RC next month.
Windows 8 works great with mouse and keyboard. And one issue won’t change that fact. This is gasping at straws here. Multiple monitors users have always needed other programs (ultramon, etc…) to complete the default implementations.
“always”? I am running dual monitors on an XP machine, and I didn’t need anything but the display drivers that came with the video card!
ronaldst,
“Windows 8 works great with mouse and keyboard. And one issue won’t change that fact.”
s/that fact/my opinion/
Your opinion seems to be in the minority.
I was just correcting your post, but don’t assume to know what my opinion is. My opinion over the mouse and keyboard functionality in windows 8 are the least of my problems with it.
You haven’t needed anything other than Windows to use dual monitors since at least 2000, at least I haven’t, maybe you have some weird video card or something.
Then again, people who use multiple monitors are often using them for good reasons, and any issues with such setups easily lead to a loss in productivity. As an aside, I keep seeing multi-monitor setups quite often these days, so I doubt it’s really even a small handful of people who are affected.
I sure hope they work on it.
It was a simple yet very prominent example of an issue, I didn’t claim it is the only one. Compared to e.g. Windows 7 many things require as many as 5 clicks more in Windows 8 which obviously is a step down, not up. Things suddenly requiring multiple steps more for no good reason is not “grasping for straws.”
As an aside, I have never used any additional software for handling multiple displays, and I am not aware of anyone else doing that either. As such I can only respond to that with one word: “hardly.”
It’s not just RT that Microsoft is creating a walled garden for. They will push those walls right around full desktop Windows soon enough if they have their way! Apple is planning the same thing.
Its my opinion that Windows 8 will alienate desktop and laptop users who do not have a touch screen. The Metro UI is perfect for a tablet and touch screen devices, but that’s it. The fact that Windows 8 has Explorer seems more as an afterthought to keep those without a touchscreen happy, however it isn’t very user friendly without the start button or orb. Removal of the start button really makes Explorer not worth keeping since now shortcuts for Explorer only apps will either need to be in folders on te desktop or on Metro which is difficult to manage with a keyboard and mouse.
Microsoft should have two different versions of Windows 8, or prompt at install if someone has a laptop or desktop without a touchscreen. If the customer chooses the version where they have a touch screen then have it boot to Metro. If they chose the version without a touchscreen it should boot to Explorer that has a Start button/orb and on the start menu have an option to enter Metro.
Basically make Windows and it’s default GUI specific to the device it’s being run on. This would make both desktop/laptop users happy since they won’t be stuck with Metro by default, and it’ll make tablet/touchscreen users happy as they have an interface built around Windows geared specifically for them.
Microsft has stated that they think that within a couple of years it will be hard to buy a computer without a touch screen display, so that’s what they’re going with. I agree that those without touch screens might be best off staying with Windows 7 until time comes for them to get a new computer.
P.S.
I will note that Windows 8 desktop environment does have some nice advantages and advancements over Windows 7, such that if one is going to just stick with “classic” apps (and they pin their most common apps to the task bar so as to avoid the start screen), then it might still be beneficial for such users to upgrade from Windows 7 to WIndows 8.
Hi,
Regardless of whether the screen is a touch screen or not; desktop users will never want to use touch. In terms of ergonomics, it’s a massive disaster unless the screen is tiny (e.g. small enough to allow you to touch anywhere on the screen while holding the screen in your hands).
See how long you can make your hands hover in front of a large vertical surface, or hover above a large horizontal surface, before your arms get tired. Make sure you don’t accidentally touch the surface (e.g. rest your wrist on the screen, send a bunch of files to the recycle bin because your shirt sleeve was dragging, etc). Now imagine trying to do “hover hands” for 8+ hours per day.
– Brendan
Um, why vertical? When I use my iPad, it’s reclined at about a 20 degree angle, and it’s quite comfortable to move things around with my hands directly. Why wouldn’t a 30″ flatscreen monitor be similarly inclined and manipulated directly rather than using a mouse?
Of course, it must have a keyboard. I can’t imagine an office environment where everyone is constantly talking to their computers. It would drive me to distraction…
Because there is often a keyboard and various kinds of paper or other objects in the way, meaning that you’ll still end up reaching out and tiring your arm.
Keyboard to the side? You might be right – I really should hook up a keyboard to my iPad and use it for a few hours to see how it works.
But having used the iPad for a couple of years now, occasionally find myself trying to pinch-zoom web pages in Chrome on my Ubuntu monitors. It’s just much more natural than a mouse for most operations IMHO.
Either you’d have to be typing on only one hand which really slows you down, or you’d have to twist your upper body to the side while keeping your head towards the display. The larger the display the more you’d have to twist your body. It might still be manageable for an hour or two, but try doing that even for a week and you’ll be crying for mercy from all the backache.
I have no idea what you do for work, but in any job where you have to sit in front of a computer and use a keyboard often such a situation would never ever fly.
iPad screen is too small to properly conduct such an experiment, but go ahead, it might still be worth doing.
I do not have this issue myself, as I haven’t so far encountered a single situation where I would have had to zoom in on anything on a desktop display.
Because now the top of it is 30″ away and everything is in perspective. Your eye compensates for this much better with a small device. Just tilt your monitor back an pretend it is a touch screen. That is not ergonomic at all.
Touch screens have been around for quite a while… but they only caught on when they could fit elegantly in your hand. Why do you think that is?
Cost, primarily.
I’ve worked on touchscreens since NASA in the 1980’s, and the affordable models really haven’t worked well until the past decade – and there only on small form factors.
I just bought a dozen 30″ 2560×1600 touchscreen models at work, and they are STILL very pricey – the touch surface is sold separately, in fact. It’s just not economical to put touch on workstation monitors, even today.
When touch is a nominal plus-up, then we’ll see if a desktop touch interface can gain traction in the mass market (other than kiosks and such). I’m not sure it can, but I certainly lack your confidence that it can’t.
We’ll see.
Well, at least in 0g (or low g, like Moon or maybe still Mars) there shouldn’t be many issues with gorilla arm…
Not like I’m dismissive of the general large touchscreen UI idea, not at all – glance over some of my replies in this thread (and BTW, the display tech of MS Surface 2.0 should bring low prices, eventually: among the usual pixels, the panel has also microcams that detect objects; essentially production methods as present mass-produced LCDs) – but there are some issues / but then it might be awesome / yeah, we’ll see.
(I’m surprised MS didn’t present ISS crew with Surface 2.0 already
)
This wasn’t a problem with pre-CAD drawing boards. And I can imagine that “form factor” returning to CAD stations, with large touchscreens.
Having another input method available doesn’t mean you have to use it 8 hours a day. You have a combination of input methods (touch, mouse, keyboard, speech, pen, gestures, etc.) and you use whichever one or ones feel appropriate and natural at any given time. If a particular posture starts to get tiring you can change postures.
That didn’t seem as much of a problem with large pre-CAD drawing boards (which can be also inclined). And don’t dismiss the possibility of software which is able to differentiate “arms resting” from purposeful actions.
A 24″ (or larger) touch-screen display sitting on a desk would be extremely inefficient. Not to mention if you had multiple ones.
A desktop display is not hand-held, it is further away on the desk and as such if you were to use any touch gestures you’d have to reach quite far out. Now, imagine doing gestures some 300 times a day, every single time stretching your arm out to make some small gesture, does that really sound like good workflow?
Could you elaborate on these advantages and advancements? I’m honestly curious. When I tried out the preview I didn’t notice anything that was of any benefit to me personally, but I didn’t use it for long so I could obviously have just missed something.
Widows 8 advantages over Widnows 7, off the top of my head: Faster boot time, uses way less RAM, better task manager, better explorer, storage spaces functionality.
The three first-mentioned ones aren’t really all that user-oriented advantages, though. Faster boot time is of course beneficial, but once the machine is up it doesn’t matter anymore. And often when you turn a machine on it stays on for atleast 8 hours, often even more than that.
Similarly, the thing about RAM would matter if all modern computers didn’t come with multiple gigabytes of it already pre-installed.
Task-manager really matters only to power-users, and even to them it isn’t an application they keep using on a daily basis.
That leaves better Explorer and storage-spaces functionality as the more-visible user-oriented features.
For multi-monitor users, there’s an extra taskbar for each monitor now. A really great feature, and Microsoft executes it better than most of the third party taskbar available currently IMO.
But still, forcing Metro on us (multi-monitor users) cancels out all of that benefit
I’ll also add yesterday’s announcement of great enhancements for multi-monitor systems.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/16/3023633/windows-8-multiple-monito…
Now, that is actually good news then. I still don’t like Metro, but atleast that fixes more-or-less all the issues I had wrt. multi-display systems.
Thank you for the link.
Get this into your thick skull. Ignore Metro. Focus on the desktop mode. If you launch Chrome there it appears just as it did in Windows 7, and you switch tabs, just like in Windows 7. The only time you may need Metro is for launching a program you don’t use so often. You can change default programs so you will rarely see Metro. Nearly everything you did on Windows 7 desktop is still there in Windows 8 desktop. Ignore Metro.
You’re not actually thinking ahead. Microsoft is strongly pushing for Metro so more-and-more applications will start moving there. In some cases it will simply be the hare-brainedness of the developers, in some cases it will be “incentive” from Microsoft’s part, but eventually more and more applications will only offer Metro-interface when running under Windows 8 with no way of changing to classic interface.
Eventually the more and more of the applications you use are moved to Metro-only interface the larger the hit on your workflow will become.
Sure, you could try to find alternatives for the applications you use, but often these alternatives are simply not good enough and that, again, causes a negative hit on your workflow.
But the more apps move to metro, the less valid Thom’s complaint is.
So:
If apps don’t move to metro, Thom can just stay in desktop mode.
If lots of apps move to metro as time goes on, Thom can spen an increasing amount of time in metro, and his complaint regarding ease of switching between desktop apps and metro apps has less merit as time goes on.
Actually quite the contrary. Often times when doing actual work on a computer you need to switch between windows, if some of the windows are Metro and some are non-Metro you’ll just get the utterly distracting transition between the two every single time. Now, there is also a situation where you may have two Metro-applications side-by-side, but then you need to switch to a desktop-application briefly and back: will your two Metro-applications still be side-by-side or will you have to adjust them again?
The whole thing boils down to the fact that often proper productivity tools cannot be constrained into a single full-screen window without sacrificing on the features and/or productivity, so there is bound to be desktop-applications for years and years to come, and with them comes the jarring transition between desktop-mode and Metro-mode.
“Now, there is also a situation where you may have two Metro-applications side-by-side, but then you need to switch to a desktop-application briefly and back: will your two Metro-applications still be side-by-side or will you have to adjust them again? ”
In this case the desktop would normally take the place of the primary Metro style app (so the snapped one would still be there on the side) and then when you switched back to that app it’d take the place of the desktop again, so you’d be OK. I think this would generally work for brief use. If you felt the need to fully maximize the desktop (and unsnap the other Metro style app) you’d have to reconfigure them, though.
The main gripe I do have is that there’s no convenient way to start a new Metro style app in the snapped view, unless it happens to be an app you’ve recently used (in which case you can drag it from the switcher). You have to go to start, tap on the tile for the new app -> it starts fullscreen so you have to bring in the previous app snapped and then move the separator (because there’s no way to bring an app directly into “filled” state).
Bingo…
Okay Thom – here’s the deal. Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) is, and always has been an application. It is an application that uses the Windows Shell services (and the two are intertwined, yes, and Win 9x had the Shell as a more singular entity, yes.) At no point do you need to run Explorer.exe to use Windows, Explorer.exe just happens to be the default application. You can replace the default app that Windows runs at start up with a simple registry change:
1) Open regedit
2) Locate this key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon
3) Change the “shell” to something else.
Part of the confusion is that Windows calls Explorer.exe the “shell”, but the core shell services run even if Explorer.exe is killed. Try this yourself:
1) Go to start menu, select “run” (or in Win 7, select the “search for programs and files”)
2) type cmd.exe and press return
3) You will see a command prompt
4) open Task manager (this needs to be the advanced view version by the way, the one that shows “processes”)
5) select “processes” and then select “explorer.exe” in the list… press “end process” – notice windows continues, your command prompt still works.
6) type “notepad.exe” in to the command prompt then press return (you might need to qualify that with the full path – on my Win 7 box I don’t.) – notice how it is still running and working… no explorer.
So, basically – yes Explorer is a graphical file and program manager and uses the Shell services provided by Windows. Yes the services in question are linked to Explorer in many ways (like a weird symbiotic relationship.) But, no, you do not need Explorer.exe to run the Windows Shell and Explorer.exe is *just* an application (in all versions of NT since 4.0) that anyone with any experience with editing the registry can replace. All you lose by doing that is the few functions that are directly tied to the explorer.exe shell (which are all COM IIRC, usually things like interacting with the start menu items, creating shortcuts on the desktop, accessing the Windows “special” folders (“My Documents” etc) and such like – which you don’t actually need if you’ve replaced the shell anyway.) Oh – and you don’t have a “desktop” as such… but I’d assume your replacement Shell can handle that.
As a side note – we used to have a great amount of fun replacing the shell on old NT4 boxes with “progman.exe” (the win 3.1 “shell”), which IIRC still shipped with NT4… The look on your co-worker’s face was PRICELESS!! “fileman.exe” still shipped in XP.
Why does it take so long for someone to figure out so obviously things ?
if you try hard
maybe you will see something more 
This is User Account Control (Vista) all over again.
Force developers to port their applications to the new platform.
Had to boot into the Win 8 consumer preview to try this, but Alt+Tab still works – even from a Metro app.
The explanation I’ve had is that Windows 8 and Metro are specifically designed for tablets and smart phones to compete with iOS and Android. So from this perspective Metro makes sense (even if you hate it).
So by using Alt+Tab, one can freely switch from a metro app to any desktop app (rather than first switching to the desktop and then switching to the desired app)? If so, then that would solve Thom’s problem.
Windows 7 is stable so they have this release to take risks with. They are going to push metro hard to get people writing desktop metro applications that can be ported to Windows Phone with ease.
This solves the application problem for Windows Phone and then they can fix the desktop problem in Windows 9 and people will trumpet it as a huge improvement. Most businesses only bother with every other Windows release anyway so that is all they need to get right.
I don’t like metro but I think it is a smart play by Microsoft because they HAVE to do something about mobile to stay relevant.
Correct me if I am wrong…but didn’t Microsoft try to put a shell over Windows in the past to make it “simpler” and “easier to use”? I believe it was called “Microsoft Bob”. How well did that work out?
Metro has nothing in common with Bob.
Bob was about taking the concept of using real-world objects to depict computer things, and turning that concept up to eleven (ala Spinal Tap), and having Office-Clippy user agents around to guide users.
Metro is the opposite of that.
I would’ve thought that the so-called “tech savvy” folks that post to these kinds of sites could see the difference, but I guess not.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-loDhsBeN2LA/TqqkP8ofzeI/AAAAAAAABc8/-08QY…
We all know what happens next…..
Windows 8 looks to be shaping up as an unmitigated disaster that will probably outstrip even Microsoft’s expectations. They have to know it’s bad and very bad. There are certainly enough people worldwide telling them so! Win8 should make WinME and Vista look like unqualified successes that turned lead into gold and brought your relatives back from the dead.
I just registered to tell Mr. Holwerda he’s doing a fantastic job keeping this OSAlert thing going and I appreciate everything he does.
That’s simply not true. They have received a TON of positive feedback on Windows 8. It has created more interest than any of their previous versions of Windows.
Don’t mistake the vocal minority with the target audience.
Presumably you’ve some insight as to what this “TON of positive feedback” from it’s “target audience” consists of and who they might be.
Far as I can figure it consists wholly of those who’d be quite happy with an iPad instead (not as well as)of a computer. It’s a large market, but it’s not nearly as inclusive as the one MS has now. It’s not even as if they couldn’t have both.
Utterly bizarre.
Maybe Microsoft just tries to say that mouse is an outdated device?
Now is the age of input revolution. Capacitive multi-touch screens, kinect. Ways to interact with computer become more human-oriented.
In such a world, there is really no place for traditional desktop experience. We need the new generation of user interfaces. No one is sure how it should look like, and how it should react to our actions, and what feedback it should provide.
But everyone tries to eat his own piece of market. That’s why, there are too much curious but unusable (at least currently) solutions.
Just wait – new input devices are to come, new form-factors of computers are to come.
Of course, there is no guarantee they will be free. On the contrary, they will be technically limited and restricted to their specific features. Manufacturers will try to avoid rivals by locking devices, will try to satisfy lawyers by using hardware-based DRM tools, will try to force you buy other devices of the same manufacturer.
But it is clear that Apple led us to the end of general-purpose computing devices.
Windows Mobile and Palm devices were really devices for professionals who needed to do their work on the road.
iPhone was the first real concept of feature-limited, but revolutionary device. Not because of capacitive screen. Because it was presented as a device for general public. For everyone’s desire. The toy everyone wants. Not because it was best or unique. It was properly marketed.
Android and Windows Phone came to finish the process.
Several days ago I saw Microsoft’s ad in subway. It told: “Windows: to be a family” (maybe my translation is not strict). Yes, this is the thing every manufacturer wants: a family of feature-limited devices using the same platform everyone wants to buy.
The thing is not good. It is just bad. But it is the market. General-purpose machines will stay here, but for the majority of ordinary people there won’t be any need in them.
Not that old trope again. Apple’s marketing is very good but the success of it’s products, the reason it can enter and utterly disrupt established markets, are much more profound and significant (and interesting) than marketing.
My view of Windows 8 is that not only is it yet another example of Microsoft playing desperate and fumbled catch up to the innovations of others, but it is actually another example of Microsoft falling into traps laid by Apple. Microsoft’s gut instinct is to protect the Windows brand at all costs, thus the counter productive branding of their phone OS as ‘Windows’ and what appears to be an ill fated attempt to blend a touch based OS with a desktop OS. Maybe Microsoft will prove me wrong and pull a sensational come back but I cannot see it happening. Can you imagine the pain of introducing Windows 8 into a corporate setting let along trying to get your Dad to run it. Windows 8 could be the most complex suicide note in history.
I don’t think market they entered was fully established. They just found the gap to fill.
Windows Mobile was a very successful mobile platform. It was ‘Windows’, too.
Why not? There are several desktops and laptops with touch screens. Also, interface is not touch-only oriented, though it is definitely not mouse-oriented, I agree.
Windows 3.1 was described in one book as a “useless thing which wastes CPU cycles over plain DOS and brings an unusable device called ‘mouse’, which provides no advantages over command line, and only forces user to perform unneeded activity for simple commands”.
It is the matter of time. One day non-computer business will not deal with general-purpose computers at all.
It possible to argue the tablet market was stunted prior to the iPad because every tablet that came before the iPad was a disaster that didn’t sell but the phone market and the music player market (and one could argue the software market) was full up with established big players. Apple disrupted them.
Which turned to dust as soon as some real competition came along. We could argue about this all day but outside of the ‘geeks who like things complicated’ fringe Windows has an appalling brand reputation
And they have sold how many?
I think the spread of Bring Your Own Device combined with the disruption of Windows 8 might finally pry corporate IT from it’s Microsoft addiction. I hope so, productivity would soar.
Care to provide a more in-depth argument for this ? I think that “fun-oriented” computers, which are used to relax before and after work, are particularly unsuitable for use at the office because they offer way too much distraction from productive work.
It’s kind of like porting Office to the Xbox, replacing every machine in an accounting department with those, and expecting people to use them for administrative tasks.
Edited 2012-05-16 07:01 UTC
Who says they won’t port Office to the Xbox?
Fortune 50 corporations are already permitting Apple touch devices in the workplace. Mine actually paid for my iPad, and the software to connect it to the enterprise. It’s much more convenient than a laptop, and more versatile than a blackberry.
People who are easily distracted by non-work options at work already have the Internet to distract them. And there’s a word for people who can’t focus on work at work: “Fired”.
But then you are talking about a work-provided computer, which remains the property of the company, is probably either locked down or filled with corporate spywares by the sysadmins, and must be given back if you leave the company some day. This is NOT the same as BYOD, which is basically about bringing your home facebook browser/video game console into the office.
This is true in general, but you are not making things easy for people if you ask them to work on something that’s been hard-wired in their brain as an entertainment device through years of leisure use.
Again, work-provided computers are different. They are clearly labeled as the company’s property, and employees are knowingly at fault if they start to apply entertainment-oriented customizations to them.
I should have mentioned that my employer doesn’t normally buy the device; I’m special. It’s normally BYOD.
And yes, they do require a custom profile, but it’s fairly benign – it simply requires a 4-digit pin to unlock. Otherwise, it’s still your device.
Revisionist history, as usual. Look at actual iPod sales numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg
It didn’t really register before 2005 (and then, mostly in few quite atypical places) – by which time, the world was already moving en masse to music consumption on mobile phones (yes, before iPhone, who would have thought) – IIRC, 30% of all European mobile users by 2008 …which only in this one market gives numbers comparable to total number of iPods ever made.
Stop looking only from inside your bubble.
(BTW software, I love how FCP crashed at least once on all official Apple presentations I’ve been to; NVM how it’s a bit of a pig – luckily we gave Sony Vegas)
Maybe inside your bubble.
Dream on… (not like I wouldn’t be glad from smth similar, to some degree – but it will hardly come from Apple, they are unwilling to bring it, they discontinued serious XServ solutions …companies still remember being burned on that one; plus, for Apple, most of the world and the scales it brings hardly exists – Apple openly states they don’t care about “lesser” people; oh they would also need to start caring about interoperability http://www.osnews.com/permalink?518154 )
“Productivity would soar” also needs more than wishful thinking – like, you know, research trying to assess if places with higher Apple usage are more productive because of it, or if that’s a simple correlation from higher levels of disposable income.
(but there is definitely once counterexample, Israel, which I would count among most productive places around …and with negligible OSX usage; maybe because of the stereotypical thoughtfulness in spending
)
Edited 2012-05-22 00:15 UTC
No, marketing is much more significant and profound. Marketing speaks to the human urge of material possession. It is a much more profound force than “making good products”. That’s just the rationalization people like to give when they surrender to their basic primate urges.
Please. Talk about reading too much into something.
careful Thom, posting about how bad win8 is might cause someone on this forum calling you a moron…
been toying with last years preview and again the 2nd preview, I just don’t get it what MS is trying to achieve :/ My main gripe is still the forcing apps to go full screen (or 1/3 versus 2/3)
The reasoning for “full screen” is:
Most computers sold nowadays are laptops (or smaller), and that phenomenon will only increase. These laptops (and smaller devices) have small screens relative to desktop computers, and because of that most users use apps in full screen mode. So Microsoft is targetting that user scenario, yes, at the expense of lesser-used scenarios. I’m paraphrasing what I’ve read on the “Building Windows 8” blog.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/
thanks for that link, good read really.
but, to use an analogy: it’s not because so many people go to MacDonalds, that I should like it :/
I’m actually in the market for a 15″ laptop.. been amazed to see that the majority now have 1366×768 res.. makes me think I’m back in 1990 when IBM introduced 1024×768
TomUK
Any similarities with GNOME Shell are only coincidence!!!
I for one don’t like the trend of devoting huge chunks of ram, OPENGL and CPU just to run a “COOL” interface that try to think for me, please let my apps use the resources. It just reminds me clippy and annoy me. The WIMP is very effective, everybody knows how it works and it is very flexible, and that is why I switched to XFCE through Xubuntu. I use it to do some light nodejs development, 3D work in blender, video with Cinelerra, edit my vectors using Inkscape, work my audio files using Audacity… and it just works and get out of the way.
The only thing it lacks is a more comprehensive settings manager out of the box.
I for one don’t like the trend of devoting huge chunks of ram, OPENGL and CPU just to run a “COOL” interface that try to think for me, please let my apps use the resources.
This, very much. I really don’t understand how sacrificing functionality for appearance became the norm over the last few years, yet here we are with Aero and Gnome Shell and company. Must needs have more eyecandy, lololololololololol!!!11
(You know what’s funny though? When I was a teenager I was whining about AIGLX not working. Now I hate it and wish it had never been invented. Always be careful what you wish for.)
Technical correction: At least technically, “Metro” (assuming you mean the Start screen, charms etc.) cannot a replacement for the Explorer shell because it IS the Explorer shell. It is simply a set of new features added to explorer.exe, just like the taskbar in Win7. It doesn’t run on top of, underneath, or alongside Explorer, it IS Explorer. You can see this yourself by noticing that killing the Explorer process also kills the Start screen etc. Metro style apps themselves can be thought of technically a new kind of “plugin” for Explorer.
Notice that the scenario you mention is only an issue for mixed use of both desktop and Metro style apps. If you’re staying on the desktop, you’ve got the taskbar there as before. If you’re just using Metro style apps, recent apps are available directly in the switcher.
I do agree that mixed use is kind of awkward, but if that’s a problem for you it implies that you want to combine use of both to begin with. If that’s the case, consider the alternatives that I’ve seen suggested:
* Making a completely separate OS for tablets etc. whose apps can’t be used on other PC form factors at all. Obviously, if you want mixed use it’s worse to be completely locked out of it than to have it be kind of awkward.
* Having a big modal switch that puts the whole PC into “desktop mode” or “Metro mode” (possibly when you plug in / unplug a keyboard or something). In this case, your scenario would involve first going into desktop mode, then selecting Chrome, then selecting a tab – so just as awkward as now. But it would also block a bunch of other ways of doing this and useful ways of using desktop and Metro style apps together. In your case, you also have the option of using alt-tab to switch directly to any app (Desktop or Metro style), going directly to Chrome if it’s pinned on the start screen, using Win + <n> to go directly to it if it’s the nth app pinned to the taskbar, etc. These wouldn’t be available if you had to put the whole system into “desktop mode”. There are other scenarios like using desktop and Metro style apps side-by-side snapped or on multimon, getting notifications from Metro style apps in desktop / desktop apps in Metro style apps, having a Metro style app / desktop app playing audio in the background while using a desktop app / Metro style app, etc., that would be pointlessly blocked by this approach. The only advantage is that it’s conceptually simpler, but other than that it would make everything more awkward and nothing less awkward.
That’s not to say that no better approaches are possible here. I agree that “Microsoft could integrate the two much more efficiently and more fluently if they wanted to” but I disagree with “easily“. It’s tricky to design something that both integrates them fluently and still keeps them distinct and maintains the identity and benefits of each model. The “obvious” solutions like integrating the taskbar all have their own problems if you think about them. Considering this I think Win8 is OK for a first effort in this regard, hope to see improvements in the future.
Now I just installed windows 8 home preview on my toshiba laptop and it went fast to install and boots up even faster. Now the keyboard and mouse work just fine for me. I dont understand why every is complaining. I think they are just a bunch of winers because MS change the look and feel of things again. And instead of a start button you have a start page.
come back after using for a while and tell us if you still think the start page is better than the start button.
Windows 1.x and 2.x – Rubbish. DOS was more productive
Windows 3.x – The shape of things to come. Lots of apps and games.
Windows NT 3.x – Rubbish but stable (shape of things to come)
Windows 95 – Revolutionary. Can’t say otherwise.
Windows NT 4.0 – Meh, better than NT 3.x
Windows 98 – 95 with a nicer UI
Windows ME – Tripe. Bug laden. Pretty though.
Windows 2000 – Best Microsoft OS ever.
Windows XP – 2nd best Microsoft OS ever. The fact that it’s still lingering over 10 years after its release exemplifies this.
Windows Vista – Tripe. Bug laden. Pretty though.
Windows 7 – Pretty. 3rd best Microsoft OS ever.
Windows 8 – I sense a trend. From what I’ve used: The Start Menu cannot go. It just isn’t time for it to be done with.
Extrapolating, then, we can look forward to Windows 9, the 4th best Windows OS ever?
(I won’t say “best Microsoft OS” since I still carry a soft spot in my heart for MS-DOS 5)
Edited 2012-05-18 07:59 UTC
Win98SE was the best 16-bit gaming OS. And when people often considered Win2K a better gaming OS the benchmarks typically still favored the 98SE. Win2K was over-rated for stability. And if you found the right mix of drivers then 98SE was good for a month at a time (before the clock bug kicked in) before a reboot was inevitable.
Games? You ran games in DOS, back then (and well into 9x era).
Plus, early NT were rather decent – just not so well supported and with somewhat beefier hardware requirements (mostly RAM, in the times when it was very expensive) than contemporary 9x. If NT 4.0 had USB and (then) latest DirectX, you’d probably describe it as “best ever” instead of 2k (which was a relatively minor improvement over what NT already offered; same as XP after it, yet for some reason it’s 2nd for you)
And it sometimes seems, in such comment threads, like I was the only one without issues under Me… (partly because, I suspect, too many people tried to treat it like earlier 9x, to “tweak” it with old tricks – which often broke the system, owing to slighly too big changes from 98SE)