Leaked Windows 9 screenshots show a work still in progress

Internet Explorer 12 is claimed to feature a new Chrome-like look.

Read the whole story

 

[rdamiani]

Dark Empath[/url]":kcvx86pi]

jdale[/url]":kcvx86pi]

Dark Empath[/url]":kcvx86pi]If you were already using your computer properly before, Win8 made absolutely no difference to how you worked.

As soon as you tell people there is one right way to use their computer (e.g. keyboard) and the other ways are wrong (e.g. mouse), your UI has failed.

I didn't say there is "one right way", Mr Strawman.

I said "if you were already using your computer properly". There are many correct ways to use a computer, and an infinite number of wrong ways. If Win8 stopped you being able to work, obviously you were doing things the wrong way.

See, I used to think that too. Then I got out in the world more and saw how other people used their computers and I realized that the ways that are correct for me aren't actually correct for other people. It's easier for me when they do things my way, of course. That doesn't mean that I'm 'right'.

 

[solendil]

They should start by telling us what is Windows supposed to be. From 1988 to 2007, it was the monopolistic all-purpose OS that you used for everything, because there was nothing else than the PC.

For my 11 and 13 daughters, Windows is the complex thing that they sometime have to use at home to launch a movie, play a game or go to a complex web site; but they don't like it, they don't get "files" and "folders" and "power off" and "standby" and "windows". Most of their computing time they spend on mobiles and a bit on tablets.

Windows is for them like a battered truck: sometimes usefull, but you prefer a sexier car. And the sexy cars have more and more options; soon they won't have ANY use for the PC at all. Will they own a full PC just to write and print a simple document here and there? It's doubtfull...

So what is the PC supposed to be in 2015? Why this static screen on the desk with a keyboard, a mouse and all this complexity? What is Windows 9 supposed to be? Who is it targeted to? For what use? Even at work I see more and more alternatives to the PC.

It looks like that last users of Windows will be productive users (think music, graphism, computing, programming, designing, etc...) but Microsoft don't want this to happen and they won't drive Windows into this direction. Instead, they make unfocused iterations of their "flagship OS"...

 

[JButler]

Operative Me[/url]":30s5lny3]

goglen[/url]":30s5lny3]

TIMMAH![/url]":30s5lny3]Get rid of the damn tiles for the desktop interface! The tiles are annoying and just take up too much screen real estate. Just let me order my program launchers in a top-down list.

This! Seriously, at least let people CHOOSE. Microsoft's newer products are wasting more and more real-estate.

I like how, in the videos they released, they literally show a button letting you choose whether you want start screen or start menu, how they literally show you that you can remove all of the tiles and go back to the ridiculously broken nested folder system...

..and people still go "give me choice".

If you can choose to go back to nested folders, if you can choose not to use any live tiles (which is just plain silly, in my opinion) if you can choose to turn on the start menu if you like, or to use the start menu if you don't...

what further "choice" are you looking for?

These are trolls in disguise jmo. Mostly Google fanboys that will hate anything that has to do W8/9. Doesn't matter they can turn off things they don't like.

 

[Marcos2247]

rdamiani[/url]":2zc8thtj]Funny you should mention Apple as being more open to change.

Funny how I didn't, really.

I said Mac-users are more accepting of change. Apple is pretty merciless at dropping features, hardware and software, and their customers are usually pretty accepting of that.

iOS7 got blasted left and right for alleged design failures, 10.7 Lion got lots of insults for its various shortcomings - yet both were quickly adopted. Mac users complain and adopt. Windows users are much more likely to outright boycott.
See the 25% market share of Windows XP. And that's not just China, I know three people personally, two of them very tech savvy, who are still using it because Vista once looked at them funny.

Linux users seem even more resistant, when you look at the shit Canonical gets basically for every single Ubuntu release that does anything different from before. Or look at the holy war over Gnome and how it dares to try out UI ideas from after the 90s.

And then there's BSD, where the people go who think Linux is just a flashy consumer OS...

 

[Devin]

solendil[/url]":33jzfzmq]
For my 11 and 13 daughters, Windows is the complex thing that they sometime have to use at home to launch a movie, play a game or go to a complex web site; but they don't like it, they don't get "files" and "folders" and "power off" and "standby" and "windows". Most of their computing time they spend on mobiles and a bit on tablets.

If you want to open a can of corn, you don't grab a circular saw, do you? If they just want to open a website or play Cut the Rope, why would they need to plunk down in front of a keyboard and mouse in the most uncomfortable chair in the house (aside from the dining room chairs)? Mobiles in the Internet 2.0 age zeroed in on a use case that was way more typical than any other: looking at stuff. However that doesn't obviate the use for a PC. I spent my teenage years using DCK and WinTex to create DOOM BSPs and WADs, respectively. I was using Bryce 3D and Photoshop, and Word and chatting with friends via ICQ and AIM. Aside from the chatting, this is stuff that, without a keyboard and mouse, is either implausable or painful to accomplish.

And that is really what this is turning into, isn't it? The argument is not about form factor. We aren't talking about mobiles, notebooks, and desktops. We are talking about a keyboard and mouse and touch. Keyboard and mouse users have no use for a touch screen. Folks that are touch users have no use for a keyboard and mouse. Those of us between the gentle slopes of the bell curve find a use for both, in their time.

I really wish people would stop pitting one against the other. In time, most likely, we'll all be using portable computers: this is the inevitable end of miniaturization. And heavy computation will be done in the cloud and steamed to the portable computer. So then there will be touch when you want it, and a keyboard and mouse when you need them.

 

[Marcos2247]

solendil[/url]":22xmkzae]It looks like that last users of Windows will be productive users (think music, graphism, computing, programming, designing, etc...)

Isn't that nearly half of the people already? And even more by 2020.

A lot of non-tech savy people are using computers productively, because computers are everywhere. My mother too has no conception of files and folders, doesn't grasp that her browser is not "the internet", that e-mails don't get delivered to her computer (she thought I was "hacking" when I configured her iPad to retrieve her e-mail).
But at work she uses it productively as a tax attorney's secretary. She's using highly complex and very expensive tax software eight hours of every day.

I don't see this divide between productive users and casual users. It's all situational.
And as such, desktop OSes can't go away. They are currently not very interesting, because the market is saturated - and dominated by the Windows monopoly. Publicly traded corporations (or those that aspire to be) are addicted to growth. Mobile computing is still a growth market, hence it gets all the love (from MS, Google, Apple, Intel, AMD, nVidia, ...)
But give it 3 years and that market is saturated as well. Companies will then have to come back to the boring markets and start refocussing their efforts. Windows/OSX will be sexy again then.

 

[WarmClay]

solendil[/url]":vxug84ru]They should start by telling us what is Windows supposed to be. From 1988 to 2007, it was the monopolistic all-purpose OS that you used for everything, because there was nothing else than the PC.

For my 11 and 13 daughters, Windows is the complex thing that they sometime have to use at home to launch a movie, play a game or go to a complex web site; but they don't like it, they don't get "files" and "folders" and "power off" and "standby" and "windows". Most of their computing time they spend on mobiles and a bit on tablets.

Windows is for them like a battered truck: sometimes usefull, but you prefer a sexier car. And the sexy cars have more and more options; soon they won't have ANY use for the PC at all. Will they own a full PC just to write and print a simple document here and there? It's doubtfull...

So what is the PC supposed to be in 2015? Why this static screen on the desk with a keyboard, a mouse and all this complexity? What is Windows 9 supposed to be? Who is it targeted to? For what use? Even at work I see more and more alternatives to the PC.

It looks like that last users of Windows will be productive users (think music, graphism, computing, programming, designing, etc...) but Microsoft don't want this to happen and they won't drive Windows into this direction. Instead, they make unfocused iterations of their "flagship OS"...

I'm a teacher, and I tend to agree with what you've observed in your children. However, I think judging an OS's success by what an 11 and 13 year old "gets" is a bit shortsighted--especially since they probably still use files and folders on their mobile devices, even if they refer to them as something different. "A Rose by any other name..." Of course, this is not specific to your children. Many kids will have to use a full fledged PCs/Macs/etc. in highschool and college for various reasons. If they try to get it now, it'll be easier for them in the long run.


I really do like your question about the shifting roles of PCs in 2015 and beyond. It seems to me that the new start menu was Microsoft's answer to the "static desktop with a keyboard, a mouse and all this complexity." But a good number of people aren't buying it (literally or figuratively). I'm thinking (hoping, really...) that Windows 9 will be to windows 8 what Windows 7 was to Vista. Same audience, similar uses, more refined product.

 

[BajaPaul]

Chikahiro[/url]":28mxxe9x]I'm looking forward to the preview. I'm debating getting a SSD and just doing a complete, total wipe of my computer to go with it...

I love Windows 8, but realize I'm in the minority.

Same boat for W9. By all new copies! No upgrades!

To do clean installs with all the upgrades starting at W7, then W8, then W8.1, and now W9. Not to mention the legions of security updates that need to be installed along the way. It has become a forever task!

Just had to go through that when my OCZ Vector SSD died again for the second time.

 

[fryhole]

It looks like a colorized version of Windows 3.1.

 

[JButler]

Another video and screenshots. Shows Metro-free start menu. Doubt that it will shut up the haters here though.

In German:

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Win ... 12912.html

It shows a new interesting feature I haven't seen before - you can pin control panel task items to folder within the start menu for easy access.

 

[BajaPaul]

Actually the W8 Preview was pretty damn nice IMO.

It wasn't until the final release that we figured out that Sinofsky pulled a quick one and yanked all the good desktop stuff out that we had been using all through the previews! That is when the bricks started to fly towards MS.

I really hope the do the windowing of apps as good as ModernMix. Apps are really quite useful on the desktop with ModerMix IMO.

 

[drfisheye]

JButler[/url]":242vzwwv]Another video and screenshots. Shows Metro-free start menu. Doubt that it will shut up the haters here though.

In German:

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Win ... 12912.html

It shows a new interesting feature I haven't seen before - you can pin control panel task items to folder within the start menu for easy access.

It also shows you can remove all tiles.

 

[JButler]

drfisheye[/url]":1fzqpq0z]

JButler[/url]":1fzqpq0z]Another video and screenshots. Shows Metro-free start menu. Doubt that it will shut up the haters here though.

In German:

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Win ... 12912.html

It shows a new interesting feature I haven't seen before - you can pin control panel task items to folder within the start menu for easy access.

It also shows you can remove all tiles.

Yes, that's what I meant by "Metro-free start menu". Glad that you posted that picture so clearly visible to posters spew nonstop nonsense about how MS is not giving them a choice.

 

[tomguycot]

This does not look like something that would make me upgrade my Win 7 installs. Why, oh why, can't they take Win 7's UI for the desktop (and at least have an aero option) and give it Win 8's under the hood improvements. Must I really sacrifice battery life and other improvements to get something with a useable UI?

 

[craigdolphin]

Personally I think the new start menu is a vast improvement: if you like 'live tiles' you can have 'em, if you don't like 'em, you can apparently remove them. I was worried they would not let you remove them, particulary the windows store one. Glad that turns out to be incorrect.

As for lacking choice:

I want to send the entire 'flat' aesthetic back to hell. Give me back Aero anyday over this bland expanse of primary colors and no visual interest. It feels archaic and primitive and I'm revolted that this has become such a pervasive trend in the industry right now. It's a matter of subjective taste as well as wanting visual clues about what is, or isn't a button or link, or some other type of control versus something that is simply content or labelling etc.

Also, if we are to have a built-in differentiation between 'real' programs, and not-called-metro-but-still-metro apps in the OS, I want CHOICE over where to buy those apps from. There's a place for curated app stores in computing, but that place is NOT on my general purpose, productivity PC. I do not want any company deciding what types of content I can or cannot use on the device I own. I hate that on Apple's devices too, but I do not buy their devices for general purpose computing or productivity. They're mainly used for content consumption.Yes, for now you can safely ignore the windows store and carry on as before. And that's precisely what I do. The point is, however, that if developers eventually start to focus on 'metro apps' for useful productivity software, and decide to forego the normal software program side of the OS then there will could conceivably come a time where Microsoft can decide to cut their costs and increase their revenues by removing support for the traditional software model entirely: forcing users who are locked-in to the ecosystem to migrate to metro entirely. Some may feel this is an overly negative caution, but IMO this is not an inconceivable scenario if the windows store ever becomes wildly popular.

I have no conceptual problem with this if I can choose which stores to buy my apps from: If I dislike the curation policies of the windows store, then I could switch to another store with policies that are more acceptable to me. Not having an actual market where customers can choose which store they want to buy from is just granting total monopolistic power to Microsoft and giving ANY company monopoly power leads to bad things for customers AND developers. Just looks at Apple's history of arbitrary and capricious curation of apps in their store for examples. If a company wants to curate on the basis of security, stability/quality, and even on design/aesthetic criteria then I'm sanguine about that. Even happy. But the moment they try telling me what types of content they're going to ALLOW me to purchase/use, then screw them and the high-horse they rode in on too! How long before Microsoft starts refusing 'apps' because they present a competitive threat to a Microsoft-produced software app? Apple already refuses to allow non-safari-source-based browsers in their app store. If I want a firefox browser on my iPhone, I should be given the option if Firefox is willing to provide it. I'll put up with this (grudgingly) on a phone, but not on my PC.

Aside from the horrible UI, the metro-isation of apps was the largest problem I have with Win8/8.1, and until Microsoft permit alternate apps stores to exist, I will refuse to use that aspect of their platform as long as I can. And I still think Microsoft are hoping to go this route. If they ever remove support for traditional software, then I will switch to Linux or some other general purpose computing OS that permits consumer choice.

So yeah, there are still outstanding issues of customer choice with Threshold/Win9. The start menu looks much better. Windowed metro apps is an improvement. Killing the charms bar is great. Hopefully the hot corners thing gets reworked too (let me decide what the particular hot corners do or don't do). All of those improvements are welcome. But Microsoft have made of me a sceptic when it comes to Windows and they have a lot of work to do to make me want to change versions from Win7.

 

[heartburnkid]

drfisheye[/url]"mpie563]

JButler[/url]"mpie563]Another video and screenshots. Shows Metro-free start menu. Doubt that it will shut up the haters here though.

In German:

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Win ... 12912.html

It shows a new interesting feature I haven't seen before - you can pin control panel task items to folder within the start menu for easy access.

It also shows you can remove all tiles.
--pic removed--

Now that, I like. Simple, uncluttered, easy to access everything.

I'm going to have to give Win9 a serious look for my desktop.

 

[Snarky Robot]

tomguycot[/url]":gwrh4v2f]This does not look like something that would make me upgrade my Win 7 installs. Why, oh why, can't they take Win 7's UI for the desktop (and at least have an aero option) and give it Win 8's under the hood improvements. Must I really sacrifice battery life and other improvements to get something with a useable UI?

Other than Aero, precisely what have they not included from the Windows 7 UI that you'd like to see in Windows 9?

 

[jrose]

The whole windows 8 interface fiasco reminds me of the phrase "re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic"

 

[Temetka]

McDeath[/url]":6wsez59f]

Chikahiro[/url]":6wsez59f]I'm looking forward to the preview. I'm debating getting a SSD and just doing a complete, total wipe of my computer to go with it...

I love Windows 8, but realize I'm in the minority.

If you're using a standard hard drive, DO NOT debate getting an SSD. Just get one. Night and day difference-- easily the best advancement in computing in recent years.

This is so true. Want to add instant speed to almost any PC with a regular HD? Slap an SSD in there.

 

[lilsmurph]

Personally I think it's great that Microsoft are handing out early versions of their product for feedback, I've got to remember that thoughtless knee-jerk responses don't reflect the majority of people on here.

Since when were these screenshots handed out by Microsoft? lol

 

[Negative4]

Metro isn't inherently bad but Microsoft takes it to the extreme... When are they going to learn that big ugly tiles, all-white icons, and no transparency at all makes for a shitty UI? Are we all just going to park at Windows 7 for a decade while Linux catches up?

 

[shadedmagus]

jdale[/url]":1tha3nr7]

xWidget[/url]":1tha3nr7]While I like the flat UI elements, I think this might be going too far. I can't tell how big any of these buttons are and if I weren't familiar with the general interface it might take me far too long to realize those are even buttons...

There's a general move towards typography as design, and completely uncued text links in place of buttons. I think it's a very bad idea, for the reason you mention. I have overlooked functions on my phone (Windows Phone) exactly because I couldn't tell they were links. In some cases I even tried clicking them but got no response for whatever reason (maybe even fat fingers) which really threw me off.

Having all the text be the same color, same font, and often the same size also removes all the visual cues you use as visual landmarks. Flat, two-color buttons and icons only contribute to this.

In short, I think the war on skeumorphism has gone too far. I don't need fake notepads and leather stitching, but I do want buttons with visible borders. I'd settle for a choice of themes, some of which make the borders visible and some of which do not.

I have come to accept the "flat" iconography in modern UI design, and can even appreciate how the more creative artists have made icons more descriptive in mono/duochrome. As such, I have no problems with the icon portion of this trend.

What I don't like about this trend are the text "buttons" that don't look like links; the information paucity (large white/blank areas, no descriptions); and for Windows 8 in particular, the default color choices for certain panels. I understand some of this is for touch-screen tech, where finger presses take up much more space than a mouse cursor, but please - give us the opportunity to increase the information density and change the color palette, please. And for Dog's sake, make the buttons look like buttons!

 

[shadedmagus]

JGoat[/url]":3i3umtl2]I like metro apps just being windows, that's handy. That start menu looks ridiculous, I hope that's optional and I can keep it similar to win8.1.

That's all we ever wanted with the Start Menu on Win8 - that it could be an option alongside the Start Screen.

 

[peterrow]

DOOManiac[/url]":ea7vs7c1]I like the new look. Hell, I even like the way tiles look on the start menu. I hope full blown tablets still get a start screen though - it really is better for those devices.

I just hope that when you are using the keyboard, the Shut Down button is easy to use. It's ridiculous w/ Windows 8.1, and that's what is keeping me from upgrading to Windows 7. (I love me my Win, left, enter)

How about just press power button on your computer (does default action, shutdown by default).
Not quite as good but Win+X, up, up right, up, up, enter,

 

[shadedmagus]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":dldyz2da]

Marcos2247[/url]":dldyz2da]I like the general design philosophy behind Metro.

Microsoft just needs to finally implement it consistently in the desktop environment. The easiest and biggest example of what I mean currently is the folder icons in Windows Explorer. Still those ugly yellow icons that I hated in Vista.

There's tons of other inconsistencies. Windows Explorer looks pretty bad altogether. Calculator is a joke.
Also, while I think the ribbon interface in Office is actually good, I HATE it in Windows Explorer.

But when done right, Metro-inspired Windows can look surprisingly good. Like SublimeText with the Metro theme (if only we could finally get rid of the non-functional title bars).

My major issue with Windows 8 was never Metro, but the idea of a closed-garden app store built into the OS. If Microsoft had allowed side-loaded apps, as Apple does, I never really would have had an issue with Windows 8. It's the major reason why I'm still running 7 on my desktop, though (truth be told) it seems that Microsoft's vision of iOSing their main operating system has not yet come to fruition.

Edit: I'm at 0+/2- right now and I'd honestly, sincerely like to know if it's because I'm not anti-Metro or if it's because I want to use the devices I paid for however the hell I want. I'm perfectly okay with people not liking Metro, but if you honestly think that Windows devices should be more like iPads, I'm genuinely at a loss for words.

Edit #2: I am aware that the closed-garden app store is not the only way to install software on the computer. It is the only way to install "Metro" apps, though, which means half (well, some percentage) of your OS is a walled garden. That's what I object to, on a philosophical level. I do own a Surface Pro (bought during the fire sale) and use a Windows phone, so I'm neither mindlessly hating on Microsoft or talking out of my @$$...

I won't say there's no reason to use any Metro app if you're sticking to the desktop (I have to admit, the Metro PDF viewer is nice on a Surface), but really - if your main focus is the desktop, you should stick to the desktop applications.

 

[Snarky Robot]

DOOManiac[/url]":1qqvrl2a]I like the new look. Hell, I even like the way tiles look on the start menu. I hope full blown tablets still get a start screen though - it really is better for those devices.

I just hope that when you are using the keyboard, the Shut Down button is easy to use. It's ridiculous w/ Windows 8.1, and that's what is keeping me from upgrading to Windows 7. (I love me my Win, left, enter)

Not sure if you're still reading, but even with keyboard, it's not totally insane.

Win+X (brings up admin menu) up, up, right and then you can pick shut down/sign out/et cetera.

Or you could go REALLY crazy and use the letter-based shortcuts, Win+X, U, U will shut down your computer. Win+X, U, R restarts, U, S makes it sleep and U, I makes it sign you out.

Not as simple to remember, but you absolutely can do it with your keyboard in under 2 second. It's amazing how few power users know about the admin menu and the keyboard command (win+x) or mouse shortcut (right click on start button) you can use to get to it.

 

[shadedmagus]

JohnnyTheGeek[/url]":grmjp5fw]While Windows 8 may have begun the road to more efficient and performing Windows mainly due to the advent of the Surface an other lower performing devices. I think we can say that Windows 9 will probably be just as dull looking UI as Windows 8 has been. I actually have grown fond on the Aero effects of Windows 7 and it probably has been one of the best looking Windows UI I can remember. I also thought Windows XP was very refreshing too. Its hard for me to say but some Linux versions look better then Windows now. You know, I still cannot find a compelling reason to embrace Windows 8 even after its tweaks to improve desktop UI for the non touch screen. Its a bit too early to say for sure. But so far Windows 9 what glimpses I have seen do not spur anymore interest for me. I am sure for Microsoft it does not want two duds in a row for Windows. I am already planning a Linux option to see if moving to another OS might be feasible. I am still not liking where Microsoft is going so far.

I no longer care for the faux-shinyness of the default Aero theme, but there are plenty of themes that will do a more natural-looking "glass" transparency or "frosted glass" translucency. Also, the rounded corners look dated to me now, because of the pixelated look. I'm using a Windows 8-style theme on my Win7 install with squared corners and a matte translucency. Also, I replaced the Win7 start orb with the white Win8 flag.

Now if only I could get the Win8 task manager on Win7...

 

[shadedmagus]

Operative Me[/url]":2xspmm2q]

goglen[/url]":2xspmm2q]

TIMMAH![/url]":2xspmm2q]Get rid of the damn tiles for the desktop interface! The tiles are annoying and just take up too much screen real estate. Just let me order my program launchers in a top-down list.

This! Seriously, at least let people CHOOSE. Microsoft's newer products are wasting more and more real-estate.

I like how, in the videos they released, they literally show a button letting you choose whether you want start screen or start menu, how they literally show you that you can remove all of the tiles and go back to the ridiculously broken nested folder system...

..and people still go "give me choice".

If you can choose to go back to nested folders, if you can choose not to use any live tiles (which is just plain silly, in my opinion) if you can choose to turn on the start menu if you like, or to use the start menu if you don't...

what further "choice" are you looking for?

Keep thinking that the nested folders are really the reason all of us wanting the Start Menu want it for, if that helps you sleep better at night.

Seriously, the nested folders thing from Win95/NT4 to XP is fugly and frustrating. All I want are the jump lists and pinned items, as well as a unified search that doesn't initiate until I hit Win to bring up the field. All in a package that takes up roughly a quarter of my screen real estate.

 

[Devin]

Seriously, the nested folders thing from Win95/NT4 to XP is fugly and frustrating

Indeed. Especially when one is using the nipple on a laptop and not following the drop down list paths collapses the whole menu.

All I want are the jump lists and pinned items

Which the task bar still does

as well as a unified search that doesn't initiate until I hit Win to bring up the field

Start screen does that

All in a package that takes up roughly a quarter of my screen real estate.

Guilty.

Though as much as I don't prefer the start screen as a launcher, I'm always curious in which circumstance the Start Screen reduces functionality due to covering the desktop. When I access the Start Menu, the desktop may as well not be there, as I don't need it to do anything in the Start Menu.

 

[DOOManiac]

peterrow[/url]":3la06np0]

DOOManiac[/url]":3la06np0]I like the new look. Hell, I even like the way tiles look on the start menu. I hope full blown tablets still get a start screen though - it really is better for those devices.

I just hope that when you are using the keyboard, the Shut Down button is easy to use. It's ridiculous w/ Windows 8.1, and that's what is keeping me from upgrading to Windows 7. (I love me my Win, left, enter)

How about just press power button on your computer (does default action, shutdown by default).
Not quite as good but Win+X, up, up right, up, up, enter,

What, and bend over all the way under my desk to push a button TWICE in one day? Madness!

 

[Devin]

Ctrl+Alt+Del, shift+tab, shift+tab, enter, down, down, enter?

 

[shadedmagus]

Devin[/url]":2n4d048a]

Seriously, the nested folders thing from Win95/NT4 to XP is fugly and frustrating

Indeed. Especially when one is using the nipple on a laptop and not following the drop down list paths collapses the whole menu.

All I want are the jump lists and pinned items

Which the task bar still does

as well as a unified search that doesn't initiate until I hit Win to bring up the field

Start screen does that

All in a package that takes up roughly a quarter of my screen real estate.

Guilty.

Though as much as I don't prefer the start screen as a launcher, I'm always curious in which circumstance the Start Screen reduces functionality due to covering the desktop. When I access the Start Menu, the desktop may as well not be there, as I don't need it to do anything in the Start Menu.

I've thought about that, and for me the reason has changed from my original position of "it covers up something I'm looking at while pressing the Win key" to "it flips between completely different modes of the UI."

After reading some positions on this in comments on Ars articles, I took a look at what I do and what I'm focusing on when I press the Win key in Windows 7, and noticed that when I hit Win to search for a file or application that I know will be there, my eyes focus on the task bar waiting for that application to pop in so I can click on it. The Start Screen completely covers the task bar, which is jarring to me and makes me lose focus for a second on what I'm doing. When this happened enough times, it got to be really irritating.

 

[Devin]

I think the "jarring" aspect is what gets most people. It never bothered me specifically, but it does to an extent interrupt my flow when switching between a 7 and an 8 box.

I can liken it to grabbing someone's iPhone or Android and attempting to find the text messaging app. Whereas on my phone I can find it with one gesture, it takes me a bit to remember where everything is on those other OSes.

 

[yogsodoth]

Joriarty[/url]":12jczslj]Why do Microsoft persist with forcing a touch-optimized interface upon keyboard and mouse users?

I do not want a touchscreen for my desktop setup. Ever. Because sitting down with my arms outstretched, prodding at my dual monitors like a zombie, is not my idea of a good user experience.

Well, you should try it. I use dual 27" touch monitors and it's AWESOME.

 

[drfisheye]

Devin[/url]":30o4wlch]Ctrl+Alt+Del, shift+tab, shift+tab, enter, down, down, enter?

Win, shift+tab, shift+tab, enter, up, up, enter

(Up is better, in case you have both sleep and hibernate in the menu)

 

[rdamiani]

Marcos2247[/url]":30q0rcv0]

rdamiani[/url]":30q0rcv0]Funny you should mention Apple as being more open to change.

Funny how I didn't, really.

I said Mac-users are more accepting of change. Apple is pretty merciless at dropping features, hardware and software, and their customers are usually pretty accepting of that.

iOS7 got blasted left and right for alleged design failures, 10.7 Lion got lots of insults for its various shortcomings - yet both were quickly adopted. Mac users complain and adopt. Windows users are much more likely to outright boycott.
See the 25% market share of Windows XP. And that's not just China, I know three people personally, two of them very tech savvy, who are still using it because Vista once looked at them funny.

Linux users seem even more resistant, when you look at the shit Canonical gets basically for every single Ubuntu release that does anything different from before. Or look at the holy war over Gnome and how it dares to try out UI ideas from after the 90s.

And then there's BSD, where the people go who think Linux is just a flashy consumer OS...

Maybe because I use Windows at work and OSX at home my perspective is different. I remember various flavors of complaints about this or that version of OSX, but it always seemed to me that the changes being complained about the most were either largely cosmetic or instances where Apple's (usually) brilliant UI failed to do the more 'correct' thing or was still lacking in some way. Windows pretty much never bothered with correct or easily discoverable until the early attempts with Vista.

As for the obsolescence - Apple is a hardware company. The software they make supports their hardware sales. If you haven't bought any hardware for a long time, they aren't going to keep putting engineering resources into keeping that old hardware running on the software that is supposed to drive new hardware sales. It's not like the older hardware suddenly becomes useless though - it just doesn't get any new functionality after a while.

Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, so they work like mad to make the new software run on as much old junk as they can. Perhaps their foray into hardware via the Surface line up and Xbox is making them think they should be more like Apple.

Can't comment on what is going on with Linux, but I'm unsurprised that people who choose to run an OS kit that they can assemble themselves get annoyed when changes to that kit mean they either stagnate or construct a new kit. When you have invested time and effort into getting things just so, it's really annoying when some third party comes and moves everything around.

 

[rdamiani]

drfisheye[/url]":2m1ir701]

JButler[/url]":2m1ir701]Another video and screenshots. Shows Metro-free start menu. Doubt that it will shut up the haters here though.

In German:

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Win ... 12912.html

It shows a new interesting feature I haven't seen before - you can pin control panel task items to folder within the start menu for easy access.

It also shows you can remove all tiles.

Yay! That, I like.

 

[rdamiani]

shadedmagus[/url]":38s60lvt]

JohnnyTheGeek[/url]":38s60lvt]While Windows 8 may have begun the road to more efficient and performing Windows mainly due to the advent of the Surface an other lower performing devices. I think we can say that Windows 9 will probably be just as dull looking UI as Windows 8 has been. I actually have grown fond on the Aero effects of Windows 7 and it probably has been one of the best looking Windows UI I can remember. I also thought Windows XP was very refreshing too. Its hard for me to say but some Linux versions look better then Windows now. You know, I still cannot find a compelling reason to embrace Windows 8 even after its tweaks to improve desktop UI for the non touch screen. Its a bit too early to say for sure. But so far Windows 9 what glimpses I have seen do not spur anymore interest for me. I am sure for Microsoft it does not want two duds in a row for Windows. I am already planning a Linux option to see if moving to another OS might be feasible. I am still not liking where Microsoft is going so far.

I no longer care for the faux-shinyness of the default Aero theme, but there are plenty of themes that will do a more natural-looking "glass" transparency or "frosted glass" translucency. Also, the rounded corners look dated to me now, because of the pixelated look. I'm using a Windows 8-style theme on my Win7 install with squared corners and a matte translucency. Also, I replaced the Win7 start orb with the white Win8 flag.

Now if only I could get the Win8 task manager on Win7...

Get thee to a 200+ DPI display like the 3200x1800 15.6" panel on my notebook and the pixels are banished for good.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

How bad will compatibility be I wonder?

 

[Snarky Robot]

drfisheye[/url]":11us5v44]

Devin[/url]":11us5v44]Ctrl+Alt+Del, shift+tab, shift+tab, enter, down, down, enter?

Win, shift+tab, shift+tab, enter, up, up, enter

(Up is better, in case you have both sleep and hibernate in the menu)

Even easier, use the letter shortcuts. Win+X, U, U.