Microsoft should stick to its guns and keep the Start button gone

Op-ed: If Redmond wants Metro apps to succeed, it needs education, not capitulation.

Read the whole story

 

[Daemonworks]

I honestly can't imagine anything much less likely than me using Metro apps when I have a desktop right there.

 

[has]

Meathim[/url]":3cxvujdu]

Cartigan[/url]":3cxvujdu]

Meathim[/url]":3cxvujdu]
The second part is trolling.

The second part is a reference to the repeated argument that console gaming is killing PC gaming. Yet, PC gaming is still here. To say that the generalization of technology is killing PCs is equivalent to saying consoles are killing PC gaming.

Except I have never made the argument that 'console gaming is killing PC gaming'. I will, however, point out that console gaming has taken a significant chunk of the gaming market away from the PC. The slow release cycle for consoles may mean that the PC scene rallies a bit as aging console hardware provides a less competitive gaming experience than newer PCs, and I expect the release of new consoles will cause that tide to turn once again.

As for mobile, that too has taken a big chunk of the casual gaming audience from both the PC and console markets. The difference there is that the traditional PC is losing that audience for good, whereas consoles, being more a compliment than competitor to mobile devices, may manage to share it as these task-specific devices become better at talking to each other.

Hardcore gaming will retain a PC base for the same reason that other niche or high-end markets will continue to use PCs: if you're willing to invest big money on top-of-the-line components then it will always provide the best user experience, but for the majority of folks who haven't got money to burn or simply prefer to spend their cash elsewhere, the console and mobile platforms will provide a user experience that is still 'good enough' at mere fraction of cost.

That wasn't the point. He said the "hegemony is broken", not "the PC is dead". As things look now, the PC will diminish, for good reasons. People don't need them, nor want them as much as the next "device". People generally don't need the computing power, they don't want the power draw.

Thank you. It's nice to know at least some Arsians can read. If folks are going to kick my arguments and mod me down, I'd much rather they trashed me for what I actually said than whatever nonsense their own strawman claims I did.

Workstations, enthusiasts and gamers are a different matter obviously. The PC will remain for quite some times to come, but I'm pretty sure it will not be as big as it has been.

Yep. I reckon the traditional 'do a bit of everything' PC will eventually hold maybe 10-20% of the personal computing market; the rest will be made up of low-cost devices optimized for specific tasks (phones, tablets, TVs, consoles, NAS) that can seamlessly interact and share tasks across the network, and offload onto servers, remote desktops, etc on the few occasions where the typical user might require that extra grunt.

And while it may take another decade more, I expect the business markets eventually to follow too once the appropriate hardware, software and turnkey infrastructure evolves and proves itself as a cheaper and far more efficient way to meet general business computing needs. Sure, you'll still see conventional desktop PCs in specialized departments such as CAD, graphic design and software development, and maybe a mix of tablets and laptops in mobile groups such as sales, but all the finance, administration and general clerical folks that form the bulk of your typical medium-to-large company will have a screen, a keyboard and a $30 stick with a big fat network pipe to a bunch of file and application servers.

...

For Microsoft in particular, all this upheaval represents both an enormous opportunity and a potential extinction event, depending on how they play it. Mobile caught them asleep, so they failed to make an early entry with a dedicated mobile platform (e.g. Courier) and the result of that is that the standard mobile platform of choice for traditional Windows users is now Android. MS's only hope now is to diversify Windows into all these other fields before Android dominates those too; hence the radical retooling that is upsetting the traditional desktop userbase.

What traditional desktop computing fans have to understand is that they are a very mature market that not only has no future growth potential left in it, but is also going to shrink significantly in the coming years. So those folks (who are, of course, greatly overrepresented in Ars and other tech forums) can scream and holler all they like about the outrages now being perpetrated, but MS has finally realized that the only thing that matters now is grabbing a significant share of the new computing markets before they are locked out of them completely. And if it has to inflict some degree of pain on its existing products and users in order to adapt quickly enough then that is a price that must be paid.

The only other real option remaining - riding the traditional Windows as far as it goes - would no doubt be hailed by the tech nerds as the saving of MS, but in reality would all but guarantee MS itself is relegated to bitplayer status in the technology world within the next decade or two. And for a business like MS that has long been the #1 world leader, such a Kodak moment would be a fate far worse than death.

 

[has]

justsayyes[/url]":37ydjdwf]Finally! A tech editor that understands that MS has a vision and should stick with it. Losing a few million desktop users might hurt, but winning many times that in mobile users more than makes up for it. W8 is jarring and different. But once take some time to create custom tiles and touch type the Windows key, its so much faster to get around then the old W7 interface.

Upvoted for the ability to perform basic math. Yeah, burning an existing market is never nice for the folks within that market, but if it allows you to grab a new market 10 or 100 times the size then it may be the best business decision you ever make.

For example, look at Apple: for years the laughing stock of the tech industry; but nobody's laughing now. The only reason Apple lasted long enough to turn itself around was thanks to its longtime education and print publishing customers who remained loyal all throughout the 90s when everyone else was abandoning ship. And how did Apple ultimately repay them a decade later? By relegating them to 'least valuable customer' status, paying them little more than lip service and enthusiatically burning them whenever the generated heat might help lift their shiny new markets a few percent higher.

Sure, it sucks for those particular customers (I'm one myself), but at least I'm able to understand why they do it. (Just wish now I'd bought a Dell box in '95 and spent the difference on Apple stock instead.) But anyone who thinks businesses like Microsoft, Google, Apple etc. are their BFF or owes them anything personally is a bloody fool and absolute sucker, who shouldn't be allowed to tie their own laces in the morning, never mind touch a computer.

...

(None of which detracts from genuine criticisms of Win8, which is glitchy and unfinished and more than a little schizophrenic, but it's a hard dig to find those within the great swamp of butthurt egos and vengeful pique at MS's perceived betrayal of its Number One Fans.)

 

[laon]

TomXP411[/url]":1aamdmkq]
I actually could imagine using an Android device for developing, but only if it was plugged in to a large monitor, had a keyboard, and had a mouse.

In short... I would use Android for development if it was basically a PC.

And it also require major interface overhaul (which practically revert it back to Linux). Unless you love using those puny device UI control on your workstation.

 

[Archangel Mychael]

has[/url]":3d1a3dcl]

justsayyes[/url]":3d1a3dcl]Finally! A tech editor that understands that MS has a vision and should stick with it. Losing a few million desktop users might hurt, but winning many times that in mobile users more than makes up for it. W8 is jarring and different. But once take some time to create custom tiles and touch type the Windows key, its so much faster to get around then the old W7 interface.

Upvoted for the ability to perform basic math. Yeah, burning an existing market is never nice for the folks within that market, but if it allows you to grab a new market 10 or 100 times the size then it may be the best business decision you ever make.

Huh. Last time I presented this opinion (pre-Win8 release), I got laughed at. Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?

 

[has]

laon[/url]":2qhgmxak]

has[/url]":2qhgmxak]Windows has to evolve, and it has to do so in a way that makes it genuinely competitive in the mass consumer (and eventually business) markets where it never traditionally needed to compete and where Android is now eating its lunch because of it.

Sure they have to but do you really see Windows 8 as evolution done right?

Evolution is the haphazard adaptation of existing assets in order to survive in a changing environment - "survival of the fit enough" - so Win8 actually fits that label quite well. What it really needs right now is a bit of the old "Intelligent Design" as well - the ability to make insightfully planned jumps and efficient rationalizations that a purely evolutionary process would never discover on its own. That means, amongst other things:

- Identify those areas where current HCI is poor and figure out how best to fix it. For example, the lack of initial visual cues that might suggest how to reveal deeper features such as charms that are normally hidden is something I already commented about. There have been a few times using my new Win8 phone where I've felt quite lost in where to go next; this doesn't mean I want static buttons sucking up half my screen space, but it'd be lovely if I could just press and hold for a second or two and see a quick pulse of light along any active edges and clickable text, and maybe even have a nice "?" button pop up if I keep holding another second or two so I could bring up more detailed help if I really need it.

- Prove that these strange new Metro apps really can be genuine alternatives and competitors to the familiar traditional desktop apps. This doesn't mean that Metro apps should provide every bell, button and whistle that desktop apps do, but rather they need to demolish the established belief that "more buttons = more features = more powerful = better" which over the years has led to conventional Windows apps being riddled by masses of buttons, most of which aren't all that powerful (or even relevant to 99% of users). That means showing it is possible to provide mass market users with all the functionality they actually require and a radically improved and much more efficient user interaction experience by improving the actual-capability-to-raw-button-count ratio.

And they need to do all this before the whole lot is permanently dismissed by devs and users, who cannot see the broad picture 10 and 20 years down the line that would explain to them why familiar things need to change now, but can see the immediate effects of those changes being hurried into place as MS race to stem their losses to the newer, more agile competition.


BTW, if MS were to pull this off, it could actually work out very well for both devs and users, reversing the last few decades' trend of every application endlessly growing until it eventually duplicates half the features in every other application, and instead getting us back to an approach more like that of the original Unix philosophy: lots of small, simple single-purpose tools that play really well together.

For instance, some folks are complaining that Metro Mail doesn't do POP, but that's actually a damn good design decision because it ensures a single, always consistent user interaction experience with a minimum of buttons and fuss. However, if it turns out that there is a future niche market for POP mail (i.e. users whose ISPs forever suck and those with a perverse love for obsolete technology) then that is a nice opportunity for some enterprising developer to sell a POP-only Metro app especially for that audience without crapping up the majority of users' existing IMAP experience with a load of useless and inconsistent POP-isms. Remember, the Metro philosophy is to divvy tasks between separate dedicated applications that do one thing well rather than have one app try to do everything itself (mostly badly), so a POP-only Metro client wouldn't actually need to do all that much itself, since address book management would already be provided by the People app, appointments by the Calendar app, and so on.

though I honestly never see anyone claiming to code or create complex design/content with their puny android or ios.

You say that today, but what are the chances that in ten years the standard 'developer workstation' is a 40" high-def screen attached to a keyboard and $50 CPU stick that runs a full-screen IDE locally while offloading all the build processes and CI testing to some backroom server? Heck, most IDEs are already designed to run full-screen anyway, so culturally it would be almost no change at all. The only factors between now and that future are the hardware (which Moore's Law will take care of) and the software - which someone will need to build and initially sell the old-fashioned way in order to bootstrap the new platform and associated infrastructure.

The truth is, software developers just do not need superpowered 16-core workstations to write code. They mostly just want them as a sop to their considerable egos and have to be given them because the dev tools available today are still operating according to 40-year-old practices and so haven't yet woken up to the presence of this wonderful thing called a 'network' and its brave new world of ubiquitously distributed computing. But time will change this ill, just as it'll address most others. And if there's a few extinctions along the way, well that's just hard evolution for you.

 

[CobraA2]

scotts13[/url]":2erom9n7]

Evilsushi[/url]":2erom9n7]
13)Hidden GUI controls (Lack of education) while the controls are hidden they are very consistent.

Hiding controls (even if their hiding places are consistent) is insane UI design. Makes the system completely undiscoverable. It only makes sense at all if every display pixel is precious, as on a pocket-sized screen or something.

Agreed. I'm not with Microsoft on this design decision to continuously hide the controls with no visual cues at all. Visual cues are important, and should not be ignored during design.

And to be honest: Screw Peter's "consistency" argument. It has its place, yes. But to instantly kill off something that people have been using for years is insane, especially when it can be useful to train them in how to access the new UI. "Consistency" is not a god to be worshiped - it's a UI principle to be used when it makes sense. And it didn't make sense in this case, sorry.

Considering how vastly different Modern is from the desktop, it didn't make sense to make that one element "consistent" when nothing else was consistent between the two interfaces. If you want to make them consistent, there are far better places to start than the Start button.

For example: That background. Allowing users to set the background to be identical between the Start screen and the desktop is a place where consistency makes sense. And it should have been done that way to begin with. It makes far more sense to start with the cosmetic items for consistency and familiarity rather than with the functional items. The biggest complaint that people have is the jarring effect of switching between the two vastly different interfaces, and it could have certainly been handled a lot better.

 

[DarkQuietus]

I couldn't care less about a start button, what I care about is the start menu. The start menu wasn't the greatest thing in the world (but with the ability to search that stopped worrying me) but the start screen is horrendous. If I'm using a mouse I don't want a touch interface, I have no use for it.

I understand that Microsoft wants to compete in the tablet space and that unification is key, but I'm not going voluntarily switch to something that feels like it wasn't designed with my peripherals in mind.

Windows 8 has a bunch of horrible UI problems (let's hunt the shutdown button being one of them), and until they fix them, I won't be using it. Windows is, and always has been, my primary OS however if they continue down this road for their future versions I'll switch to linux and use Windows for gaming/exclusives.

 

[Abresh]

People don't even need to be 'taught' how to do things in Windows 8. My father, who hates it when I upgrade the OS's (at first), was able to figure out how Windows 8 worked within 10 minutes of having it boot up for the first time.

There is no reason why someone as technologically illiterate as my father could figure out how to use Windows 8 while other people cannot.

 

[morfraen]

Metro apps have no place on the desktop, the entire design of 'fullscreen only' is fundamentally flawed.

It's called "WINDOWS" for a reason.

The 'magic corners' design is just as ridiculous. Users need visual indications of where they can interact with the screen.

 

[realmrinternet]

Windows 8 is a square peg in a round hole- ya get it? The young wantabees don't have to reinvent the wheel to justify themselves - KISS? Get over it... the market has spoken so think harder next time!

 

[alohadave]

morfraen[/url]":1gkcq93z]Metro apps have no place on the desktop, the entire design of 'fullscreen only' is fundamentally flawed.

It's called "WINDOWS" for a reason.

Curiously, I use my windows full screen, and switch back and for as needed. Keep trying though, some day you'll find a generalization that applies to everyone.

 

[yester64]

I don't own Windows 8 but i don't get the fuss about start menu at all. In all the time i use Windows i never or very rarely use the start button at all.
Mostly desktop button or command. Works just better.
But i might try Windows 8 in the future once i have a pc that can run it.

 

[scotts13]

Abresh[/url]":3lw23wgl]People don't even need to be 'taught' how to do things in Windows 8. My father, who hates it when I upgrade the OS's (at first), was able to figure out how Windows 8 worked within 10 minutes of having it boot up for the first time.

There is no reason why someone as technologically illiterate as my father could figure out how to use Windows 8 while other people cannot.

Your father, as a you-proclaimed technological illiterate, has far less unlearning to do than virtually all of us in this discussion. Like it or not, there's a visual language that's developed over the last few decades that informs us how to interact with computers. Break that, and WE are broken. Someone not steeped in that visual language is not.

 

[scotts13]

mogbert[/url]":uuyc702g]
I've had a touch screen on my computer WAY WAY back in Windows 950c times. I got a big 21" touch screen CRT second hand from a Radiology department. And I didn't use the touch screen hardly at all. The issue is that we generally want our larger screens to be parallel to our faces, and our arms are just not comfortable to be holding them up there that long. So we have these lovely little mice which we move perpendicularly on our desks, and our arms don't get very tired.

Does no one but me remember the HP-150, circa 1983? A desktop computer where the primary "pointing" interface was a touch screen. Surprise, after a few months the repetitive-stress injury complaints started to pour in (customers constantly reaching up to the screen) and the feature was discontinued. IT'S NOT A FRICKIN' DESKTOP COMPUTER INTERFACE!

 

[AussieGrunt]

Coming into this late, and unfashionably so, but my stance is that I miss the start button. Simple as that. I dont mind the start screen, and it definitely has its benefits and uses, but when I'm at the desktop, I want to stay at the desktop, and thats where the start button comes into it.

Its a simple, time proven method that works. So why completely get rid of it? Give reasons for people to migrate to a new method, but you have to make that method better or its just going to piss people off.

Bringing the button back is a good thing. If the start screen is better, people will use it by default anyway. Maybe not straight away, but if the choice is there the better option wins out.

 

[Brigga]

I have to admit I don't mind running Win 8 at home. I'm getting used to it, I don't often use the start screen, well only to get to the desktop ... I like the improvements to the system, the speed of things... but something seems a little off. It's hard to put my finger on it really.

The lack of intuitiveness (is that even a word???) is what sorely lets this whole operating system down.

 

[korg250]

tim1_2[/url]":2v43ibtb]

vl_oka[/url]":2v43ibtb]
I *loved* the comment where someone had to Google how to shut down their new Win8 computer. If *that* isn't an EPIC FAIL on the part of MS (even worse than the original "click on Start to select Shutdown" ridiculousness) I don't know what is...

Some people may roll their eyes at that, but this is the sort of transition it has been from Win XP/Vista/7 to Win 8 for a lot of people. I bought my wife a laptop that came with Win 8 (because I couldn't get the same model with Win 7), and our experience has been nothing but negative.

It took some work to figure out how to shut it down. It took some work to find the Control Panel. I'm still not sure it's possible to get a simple list of your installed programs like you can in the Start Menu.

I get that they are pushing Metro and whatever else on us as "the future", but would it have been so terrible to have an option to just have "Desktop Mode" where everything looks and functions like Win 7? I guess that's not what they wanted though.

I actually downloaded third party software onto her laptop that brings back the Start Menu.

When you release a new OS, people should be clamoring to upgrade to it...not wondering how long they'll be able to use the old one before they are forced to upgrade out of obsolescence.

Option 1: Start screen >> right button >> all apps
Option 2: Press "windows" key >> press any button to search >> ESC

You need to learn the basics of Windows 8, like right click on any metro screen.

 

[CobraA2]

korg250[/url]":2nwm4d2b]

tim1_2[/url]":2nwm4d2b]

vl_oka[/url]":2nwm4d2b]
I *loved* the comment where someone had to Google how to shut down their new Win8 computer. If *that* isn't an EPIC FAIL on the part of MS (even worse than the original "click on Start to select Shutdown" ridiculousness) I don't know what is...

Some people may roll their eyes at that, but this is the sort of transition it has been from Win XP/Vista/7 to Win 8 for a lot of people. I bought my wife a laptop that came with Win 8 (because I couldn't get the same model with Win 7), and our experience has been nothing but negative.

It took some work to figure out how to shut it down. It took some work to find the Control Panel. I'm still not sure it's possible to get a simple list of your installed programs like you can in the Start Menu.

I get that they are pushing Metro and whatever else on us as "the future", but would it have been so terrible to have an option to just have "Desktop Mode" where everything looks and functions like Win 7? I guess that's not what they wanted though.

I actually downloaded third party software onto her laptop that brings back the Start Menu.

When you release a new OS, people should be clamoring to upgrade to it...not wondering how long they'll be able to use the old one before they are forced to upgrade out of obsolescence.

Option 1: Start screen >> right button >> all apps
Option 2: Press "windows" key >> press any button to search >> ESC

You need to learn the basics of Windows 8, like right click on any metro screen.

Something that little training video on first use doesn't teach.

Yeah - this is why Windows 8 is having a tough time. Did it tell anybody to right click to see all programs? Nope. Is is something many people will think of to try? Probably not.

Me? I'm highly experienced - I know with 99.9% certainty that if I were to accidentally mess something up when I experiment with my OS, I can fix it. So I'm pretty confident when it comes to trying things out to see what works.

My parents? Not so much. They're not so sure they can fix things if they mess up, so they're afraid to try random things. So they're less apt to try to figure it out. I don't really blame them, either: It's not really their job to be computer experts, and they usually have some work to do when they're on the computer, so they don't really have the time to experiment either. And Microsoft really does nothing to accommodate them in Windows 8.

 

[SDBud]

Ars doesn't seem to understand that MANY of us DON'T have tablets, and may never have them
(DIDN'T Ars do a poll on that recently??).

We DO have powerful desktop systems with LARGE monitors, and Metro SUCKS there.

And it's not about the start BUTTON, MS, it's about the start MENU!

I almost never use the start menu on Vista, I DO have a desktop full of icons grouped as I want them.
When I do need something that's not on my desktop, I do use the start menu.

My REAL DESK desktop ALSO has many things on it, and instantly available.

 

[lordcheeto]

I absolutely agree with you, Peter. My biggest pet peeve is hearing people who haven't used Windows 8 for a significant length of time, if at all, complain about the start screen, which is the majority of the "complainants" (read: whiners).

Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

 

[hokiebob444]

lordcheeto[/url]":kcerz0om]
Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

It's not "cohesion" if you intentionally alienate the desktop users from this desirable experience that you're talking about. Cohesion is making an OS that works well for all users....not just this new tablet marketshare that you're hoping to get a stronghold in. It's NOT a desktop OS, period. I've been using it since day 1 and IMO it's still a steaming pile of poo (on the desktop at least).

 

[scotts13]

lordcheeto[/url]":3oblku4l]
Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

Why? It's good if they (or their applications, more properly) can interchange data, and it's nice if they don't go out of their way to use dissimilar visual metaphors - but a hammer and a screwdriver are different tools. You don't pound on screws because you've standardized on a "hitting interface."

Even Apple, for whom OSX and iOS are different environments, is getting some kickback from users who feel the desktop interface is adopting too many tablet behaviours.

 

[heartburnkid]

laon[/url]":1jepnv7b]

TomXP411[/url]":1jepnv7b]
I actually could imagine using an Android device for developing, but only if it was plugged in to a large monitor, had a keyboard, and had a mouse.

In short... I would use Android for development if it was basically a PC.

And it also require major interface overhaul (which practically revert it back to Linux). Unless you love using those puny device UI control on your workstation.

Honestly, it wouldn't need much. Android and iOS use a lot of the same visual language that desktops traditionally have, and there are already bolt-on windowing systems available for Android. Not to mention, Android is infinitely skinnable; while that results in terrible OEM skins like Sense and MotoBLUR being foisted upon the world, it could just as easily be used to beat Android into something resembling a desktop OS.

 

[Cartigan]

lordcheeto[/url]":iv35nutp]
Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

I know when I think cohesion, I think of something designed for one interface used on a completely different type of interface.

That's why I often kayak on my street. For cohesive travel options.

 

[jackstrop]

lordcheeto[/url]":3i4c3csq]
Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

I find it humorous that we've come around full circle back to the idea of full screen single task computing being labeled as "Modern".

 

[Cartigan]

jackstrop[/url]":3e35236g]

lordcheeto[/url]":3e35236g]
Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps, and cohesion between desktop and tablet interfaces is desirable in an OS.

I find it humorous that we've come around full circle back to the idea of full screen single task computing being labeled as "Modern".

Especially as it is being put in place to overwrite the 20 year old capability to multitask while Android is working in multitasking into the system.

 

[dal20402]

lordcheeto[/url]":3j68xtd4]Desktop users are not harmed by the start screen, even if they never use Modern Apps

You complain that "whiners" haven't used Windows 8, but I'll complain that you haven't even read the thread before posting. Lots of users have told you exactly how they're harmed by the full-screen start screen.

 

[SomeUKGuy]

It's too late for me, I found w8 unusable on my new laptop. It was slow & clunky.
I already paid the Microsoft tax for it and but forced to get w7 to replace it.
Microsoft didn't need to capitulate in my case, w8 was/is sh*t!!!

 

[the_frakker]

How difficult would it be to have the bottom-left corner be a hot spot for an always-present Start Button?

Then when clicking the Start Button, a snapped menu pops out from the left and shifts the main screen over a bit - same as it would if another app was open in snap view. This gives users a Start Menu that doesn't take the user away from the current activity and works very similar to the traditional Start Button from Windows of years past. It would be awesome if this menu could then be snapped anywhere on the screen or even PINNED to the screen if users want it always present.

Notice the Search bar included, which would also provide a quick, easy, and traditional way of getting to search.

(( see this mock-up as an example ))

 

[the_frakker]

Here... added "All Programs" option as example that you could access more than just pinned applications to the start menu. It would work similar to the traditional Start Menu, but would use the Windows 8 styling.

 

[heartburnkid]

the_frakker[/url]":38y6dccf]How difficult would it be to have the bottom-left corner be a hot spot for an always-present Start Button?

Then when clicking the Start Button, a snapped menu pops out from the left and shifts the main screen over a bit - same as it would if another app was open in snap view. This gives users a Start Menu that doesn't take the user away from the current activity and works very similar to the traditional Start Button from Windows of years past. It would be awesome if this menu could then be snapped anywhere on the screen or even PINNED to the screen if users want it always present.

Notice the Search bar included, which would also provide a quick, easy, and traditional way of getting to search.

(( see this mock-up as an example ))
---snip---

See, this would be an actual good idea. This could, depending on implementation, be an actual change for the better. But Microsoft would have to do some sort of non-half-assed UI design to come up with it, so it's not going to get done.

 

[TomXP411]

JoepyDoe[/url]":5w37zj7w]Why windows 8 at all? I just bought a three-year-old Macbook on ebay, and it blows the doors of my 1-year-old Windows 7-upgraded-to-8 desktop.

Bull puckey.... either your desktop was already out of date when you got it, or you really botched your Windows 8 install. My Windows 8 system boots to the desktop in just a few seconds, and I can be logged in and working faster than any computer I've ever owned.

Macs and PC's use the same hardware, and the PC world actually gets newer hardware sooner than Apple customers. In addition, Macs don't have the latest graphics chips, so they're not going to do high end multimedia or 3D gaming with the kind of performance that you get out even a decent desktop PC.

Macs are good computers, but they're not better than PC's. Apple is just another brand these days - neither better nor significantly worse.

 

[TomXP411]

has[/url]"dj61j1d]

justsayyes[/url]"dj61j1d]Finally! A tech editor that understands that MS has a vision and should stick with it. Losing a few million desktop users might hurt, but winning many times that in mobile users more than makes up for it. W8 is jarring and different. But once take some time to create custom tiles and touch type the Windows key, its so much faster to get around then the old W7 interface.

Upvoted for the ability to perform basic math. Yeah, burning an existing market is never nice for the folks within that market, but if it allows you to grab a new market 10 or 100 times the size then it may be the best business decision you ever make.

The only problem is that Desktop has always been Microsoft's core market. Without desktop, there is no Microsoft.

Apple sells more iPods than computers. Google sells nothing but services. Motorola, HTC, and Samsung all have a business outside of mobile phones and tablets.

Not so Microsoft. If they alienate their desktop market badly enough, people will start to look at alternatives, and those alternatives do exist.

The worst possible scenario for Microsoft is for them to gain the tablet space and lose the desktop market to Linux. And before you say "that will never happen", Linux has 2 very good office suites. It has the Facebook and the Youtube. The only thing Linux doesn't have is the massive catalog of games that's available on Windows.

But there's this little tool called WINE.

 

[scotts13]

TomXP411[/url]":26yot0br]

Macs and PC's use the same hardware, and the PC world actually gets newer hardware sooner than Apple customers. In addition, Macs don't have the latest graphics chips, so they're not going to do high end multimedia or 3D gaming with the kind of performance that you get out even a decent desktop PC.

Macs are good computers, but they're not better than PC's. Apple is just another brand these days - neither better nor significantly worse.

They just run a better operating system. Actually, with the possible exception of specialized gaming graphics chips, Macintosh computers are very highly rated as Windows machines, every time they're tested as such.

 

[Alan Gilbertson]

With the greatest respect, I have to disagree with this article's conclusion.

If the most user-friendly thing you can do with a computer system is speed it up (and why else would we shell out for faster processors, more RAM, 10,000 rpm SAS drives, SSDs and Raid 0 arrays?), it follows that the best UI uses the minimum number of steps and (for a non-touch, large screen system) mouse/trackpad/pen travel to accomplish the task at hand. For as long as we are mostly working in a desktop environment with non-touch displays, the current hybrid UI imposes extra steps and UI lags upon many routine tasks.

Gaining familiarity is one thing; we all have to do that when a new version of our work applications or a new OS version comes out. That's not the problem. What is a problem is when a new UI imposes extra steps or unnecessary delays to getting something done. That is the fundamental objection I have to Win8, which is in most other respects excellent.

If the modern UI had been a user-selectable alternative UI, rather than a compulsory change, my guess is that Win8 would have gained much greater acceptance. A growing library of useful and productive apps built for the modern UI would then encourage users to transition gradually, without losing productivity in the interim.

 

[TomXP411]

scotts13[/url]":2ut3n1u0]

TomXP411[/url]":2ut3n1u0]

Macs and PC's use the same hardware, and the PC world actually gets newer hardware sooner than Apple customers. In addition, Macs don't have the latest graphics chips, so they're not going to do high end multimedia or 3D gaming with the kind of performance that you get out even a decent desktop PC.

Macs are good computers, but they're not better than PC's. Apple is just another brand these days - neither better nor significantly worse.

They just run a better operating system. Actually, with the possible exception of specialized gaming graphics chips, Macintosh computers are very highly rated as Windows machines, every time they're tested as such.

I won't agree that it's a better OS. I've used Macs, and I've owned Macs. There's nothing inherently superior about MacOS, and there certainly are things that Microsoft does do better. (Visual Studio is simply the best development environment in the world - bar none.)

I went back to Windows for various reasons, but the biggest was the "do it Apple's way or don't do it" mentality. This is definitely happening in Windows 8. It's not enough to put me off of Windows, but it is frustrating.

However, I didn't come in here to get in to a Mac Vs. PC debate. I should have left the obligatory fanboy post alone. Actually, I'm a bit surprised there aren't more.

 

[TomXP411]

Alan Gilbertson[/url]":3o09bn56]If the most user-friendly thing you can do with a computer system is speed it up (and why else would we shell out for faster processors, more RAM, 10,000 rpm SAS drives, SSDs and Raid 0 arrays?), it follows that the best UI uses the minimum number of steps and (for a non-touch, large screen system) mouse/trackpad/pen travel to accomplish the task at hand. For as long as we are mostly working in a desktop environment with non-touch displays, the current hybrid UI imposes extra steps and UI lags upon many routine tasks.

If the most user-friendly thing you can do to a computer is speed it up... then we'd remove graphical interfaces entirely and go back to text-only consoles with graphical tools only used for special purposes, such as file management and WYSIWYG editors.

I think I mentioned this previously: in the late 90's, I used to work for a company used mainframe-style computers running a variation of Unix. You could access our software using a simple terminal program running on a desktop PC, or even a dumb terminal. The entire application lived inside the text interface, and it was fast and efficient.

Then the clients started asking for a Windows client. So we made one. We spent several years building a proper Windows user interface that used all of the standard GUI components to represent the same things that previously had been displayed on green screen monitors.

The problem is that no matter how fast your computer was, the old text UI was faster. You could get anywhere you needed to go with about 5 keystrokes, and there was no need to move the mouse around the screen hunting for things.

In nearly every respect, the non-graphical interface was a better, faster, easier to use interface - once you had some basic training.

But everyone Oohed and Ahhed over the Windows interface. I'm assuming that they're now Oohing and Aahing over the web based interface. (Since I imagine that all their clients demanded "the cloud" about 2 years ago.)

So the clearest, most simple answer is this: often, people don't actually want what works best. They want what pleases their eyes. Those people are pleased by the pretty tiles, and since the email and the Facebook and the You Tube can all fit on the Start screen, they don't care that it's slower, less efficient, and more complicated.

Because it's pretty.

 

[Alan Gilbertson]

@2late2die:

It was the desktop users that cried out for it, and here's the kicker, it wasn't about the start button, it was about the start menu. So even here Microsoft completely failed to understand what the actual issue was.

Exactly so. That's true for a broad spectrum of desktop and laptop users, not just the power users.

I'm guessing a lot of us here are like me: "Tier 0" tech support for friends, colleagues and family. I've already had long conversations talking people through basic tasks in Win8 that were never an issue for them on their "old computers."

Can I be alone in thinking the only practical way to close a Metro app on a non-touch device is Alt-F4? Neither mouse nor trackpad gestures work reliably enough to be other than frustrating on any of the many systems I've tested. The gesture interface isn't much fun on a large touch-screen, either, unless it's angled a long way from the vertical and placed not far above waist height. I find it quickly gets tiring, and the idea of leaning across a desk constantly to use a touch screen seems awkward enough that I'm not tempted to try it. Cue Kinect, maybe?

 

[TomXP411]

Alan Gilbertson[/url]":q6lqfth7]Can I be alone in thinking the only practical way to close a Metro app on a non-touch device is Alt-F4? Neither mouse nor trackpad gestures work reliably enough to be other than frustrating on any of the many systems I've tested. The gesture interface isn't much fun on a large touch-screen, either, unless it's angled a long way from the vertical and placed not far above waist height. I find it quickly gets tiring, and the idea of leaning across a desk constantly to use a touch screen seems awkward enough that I'm not tempted to try it. Cue Kinect, maybe?

ALL of the gestures are ridiculous for mouse users and touch users alike. Swiping in from the edges is a useful gesture, but swipes should always be an addition to on-screen controls, not a replacement for them.

As to using the Kinect to run my PC: That would be enough to make me go to Linux full time.