If it is better on tablets and laptops then it means it is less than optimal on desktops, and should not be present.
Can Windows 8 be rescued at this point?
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
Not really, then you'd sacrifice the usefulness of the desktop. You said it shouldn't exist at all on the desktop because it detracts from the desktop experience, which I disagree with. It's not perfect, but it's got more than enough good qualities to justify it's existence on my desktop for me.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Peterthumpa
Member
Tablets are new technology, 3 years ago they didn't even existed. Compare their user base to desktop and notebooks worldwide. I think you're understimating how big is the group of people that even never touched a tablet device before.
I've been usng just my nexus 7 alot lately if I just want to go on the net and don't want to deal with windows
On my laptop
Its a much more carefree experience
Plus it has flash
I know you can do the same on windows
But I don't even want to deal with windows
Fair
do.
I don't think Flash is the best analogy for the Windows App Store. The problem with Flash is that it's inefficient in terms of battery use and a massive security risk.
One thing I noticed with Windows 8 though is that some computer functions are just better as tablet app experiences *even in desktop* than as desktop programs or even through a desktop browser. Quickly checking webmail (not responding though lol), checking the weather, quick view of twitter, youtube, netflix etc. Just as there is value in having the command line easily available in a desktop environment I'm convinced that there is a value of a very different sort in having tablet apps easily available in a desktop environment as well.
Take the weather use case.
Desktop
Fire up browser, navigate to favourite weather site or go to google search box and type 'Toronto weather' enter.
Windows 8
Press Start, click weather button, TON OF INFO RIGHT AWAY, weather by hour, weather by day, precipitation, history etc.
Pizzaroll, everything you state is a matter of opinion. Microsoft has done a excellent job with preparing the drivers and software compatibility for windows 8. Thats all i asked for. The os is not broken and is only going to get better with the service packs. I have yet to find a flaw that hinders the usage like it did for vista.
I'm not sure why this thread even exist.
I'm not sure why this thread even exist.
actually... tablets existed before three years ago. And they ran full desktop windows. and most people didn't give a shit.
3 years ago Apple came in and made a tablet with a simplified, touch optimized interface. And then they took off.
Just one more reason I think having a desktop with mouse-sized pointers anywhere near a tablet OS these days is a mistake.
Alx
Member
It's only a compromise if you're using both desktop and metro apps. But you can go full desktop or full metro and in that case have all the features of each mode available. By wishing to split both modes into separate OS, you're only removing functionalities from Windows8, without gaining anything in return.
I'm not sure that would work. Having the tiles as a static background would limit the amount of data you can use, and having it as a scrollable background like the current metro screen would probably make it difficult to handle while moving around in the desktop. Anyway to use it properly you would want to hide all other active windows, which wouldn't be very different than having the metro screen pop out when you need it.
And of course it would prevent users from having a nice wallpaper, and that wouldn't be well received (I don't care on that aspect, I always use a single color background).
Anyway having a "tile background" AND a start menu would be even more "two-faced" than replacing the old Start with a new screen.
*edit : it's completely unrelated to the previous comments, but I was thinking about tiles being only considered as something out of a touch screen UI, that are not adapted to regular mouse/keyboard control. Well I disagree, and I think a proof that the idea is more universal is the evolution of web browser. Especially their bookmarks/favorites management that went from this :
to this :
Replacing menus by big content-filled images for useful shortcuts is not specific to touch controls at all, and it already proved useful in desktop environments.
Peterthumpa
Member
I don't know if devices that had the weight of a brick, had an OS that was basically awful for touch inputs and that had less than 2 hours of battery life could be considered tablets.
Yes, Apple reinvented the market with the iPad, but everybody else is following suit. With the Surface (and other Windows 8 "ready" ultrabooks lauching soon), Microsoft has ticked all the checkboxes, from the improved touch interface to the hardware. I think that the scenario right now is way different.
I don't need a touch screen to enjoy live tiles and a more customizable start menu. What issues are you having with using the start menu with a mouse and keyboard?
What's the point of having a hybrid OS if you can only use one mode effectively at a time? I think personally that Microsoft should unify the two interfaces, but make sure that the overall interface is suited to the type of device you're using. For example, you could have a taskbar on screen on a desktop, but not on a tablet.
I don't think so. After all every previous version of Windows has had both, and no-one called those two-faced. Here's a design I made to show how it could be done:
How does it not? A feature that is "better" (or "best") on laptops and tablets and "not best but not bad" on desktops should not be on desktops, because by being better elsewhere you prove that it is not an optimal feature for the desktops. Only things the essentials and things that are "better"/"best" on desktops should be present on desktops, and vice versa.
In this case, the loss of "not bad" (so, "okay") features is offset by a more pure, clean, and focused product that concentrates on what it is best at. Anything that could possibly detract from what it is best at should not be present, it is superfluous software bloat and should be left for the devices and platforms that perform those features best.
Also see: Dieter Rams' ten principles of good design (yes, they are applicable to the software and computing world even if only one company in this industry follows them) and the concept of "feature creep"
I haven't read through the whole thread but this is the most correct post so far. I had XP and Vista from the beginning. XP was actually much worse in terms of stability (BSOD). Besides an over-protective security system, there was actually nothing wrong with Vista, especially after a few easy user preference tweaks. I also got Windows 7 on launch and it was literally the same. Not sort of. Exactly the same. And the dumb sheep that follow public opinion/perception screamed for Vista to go to hell and happily embraced and this wholly new, different and better thing. Fucking joke.
I'm on Windows 8 now. Guess what? Besides added benefits like super fast boot-time, it's the same exact thing as Win7 after you install Start8. Idiotic group-think seems to have banished 8 into shit status regardless of the truth.
If you need to remember a dozen or so new shortcuts just to be able to use Metro comfortably on a desktop PC, then yes, it's bad.
You're destroying your own argument. Windows 8 would have been a better product out of the box if Metro had been optional.
Far too many people who claim to love Windows 8 do so because they like the enhanced desktop experience, not because they like Metro apps, the new app store or the "enhanced" start menu. If Windows 8 fans feeld the need to remove or at least ignore the most important new features of Windows 8 in order to comfortably use it, then it simply means that Windows 8 is a design failure.
Mouse works fine.
You still haven't proved why it is a suboptimal feature for desktops. It may be better on a touch interface, but that does not necessarily mean that is is somehow bad on a desktop. Besides, with your logic, they should be shipping separate versions of windows for laptops/tablets/desktops. How is that not worse?
Alx
Member
I consider metro apps as "full screen apps" as part of their identity (and visual appeal). If I wanted a task bar, I would be running desktop apps that can do the same thing. As a matter of fact I don't use many apps when running Win8 Pro, but when I do I don't want anything else than the app on my screen. Desktop is made for multitasking, metro for specialized, and I'm glad that both can run on the same machine.
I don't really see the point of having the same shortcuts in the menu and in the background tiles... what previous version of Windows had were a selection of favorite shortcuts/documents on the desktop, and the Start menu to explore all the features.
What you're proposing is a configuration with the content of the start menu at two places, and without the features of the old desktop...
Doesn't have to be separate boxes. You throw the disk in there and it asks: do you want Metro as the default environment at startup or not?
The parts of Windows RT that rely on the desktop are about as bad for touch input as on XP.
And the hardware for Windows 8 hybrids is much heavier and has half the battery life of the ARM tablets. so, yeah, I don't think things are that much different.
MS has an OS for ARM hardware held down by a major portion (desktop) that's not optimized for touch.
MS has as OS for Intel hardware that will take full advantage of the desktop as if it were a laptop, but the hardware is heavier (not quite a brick like old tablets but way heavier than other current tablets) and gets shitty battery life.
That's why I don't think the combined OS is a great idea. There's no reason why it has to be ONE OS on such radically different hardware. Even when thinking about the future, why do some people insist on this one OS everywhere? why? Seriously. This is a PR spin that MS has put out there and it appeals to some notions of one device everywhere being ideal. But the execution is more complex than most realize (we're seeing this now) and the hardware that could theoretically pull it off with no compromise is so far away that MS is in real danger of letting the market pass them by.
metro is pretty cool on desktop if you have multiple displays actually, IIRC it loses focus if you launch an app though, is there a way to keep metro running on a second monitor full-screen at all times?
haven't used win8 in a while, gotta install the final version soon on my main PC.
haven't used win8 in a while, gotta install the final version soon on my main PC.
You could just use the mouse. That's what I've been using on my laptop for the past month.
Not what I'm arguing, that's fine and reasonable, but MS probably has it's own reasons for not doing that. He's saying that because it's suboptimal, it shouldn't be there at all on a desktop, as if all OSes weren't all a clusterfuck of compromises.
The tiles in the picture are really just placeholders. As I see it, the desktop should be an area for live tiles that you want to be able to see but not necessarily click on, like a world clock or weather tile, while the start menu is an area to pin programs and access the settings and power options.
Umm, you just said it's not optimal for desktops yourself. Optimal does not mean "decent" -- it means best, most desirable.
Laptops and desktops are similar enough to be contained under one version of Windows, other than hybrid touchscreen/keyboard and trackpad laptops which are bad hardware designs. Tablets and phones should get their own version that is 100% built around those platforms, yes.
Just can't believe the crazy here. I'm genuinely having a hard time parsing the "logic".
Utility is utility. I could go a day without seeing the Modern interface for productivity, or I could press the start button ever half hour or so and benefit from the at-a-glance information there. I lose nothing by having the option of either approach and clearly gain the utility that option brings.
What's the point of having a hybrid OS if you can only use one mode effectively at a time? I think personally that Microsoft should unify the two interfaces, but make sure that the overall interface is suited to the type of device you're using. For example, you could have a taskbar on screen on a desktop, but not on a tablet.
I don't think so. After all every previous version of Windows has had both, and no-one called those two-faced. Here's a design I made to show how it could be done:
Hmmm... This is actually pretty nice looking.
I wouldn't mind if the desktop evolved in this direction... the tiles need to be smaller, but the idea of having tiles/widgets that can display information and expand with additional functionality isn't unique to metro - and has proven to work quite well in Android.
A mixture of tiles/widgets and icons is fine I think.
If they're desperate to have full-screen friendly apps, then have a shadow indicator of the quick launch bar; as the mouse approaches from the bottom, the pops the bar up.
Kinda like a pop up quick launch bar enforced on an application by application basis (they can give the users the option to always have the bar up, to have it pop-up always, or let the system deal with it on an application by application basis).
Alx
Member
So you would see headlines in a tile, or a weather status, and you wouldn't be able to click on it for more info, and need to use the start menu to launch the associated app ? Nah sorry I don't think it's a good idea at all. It completely defeats the purpose of tiles.
So, make the same arguments but use superlatives?
Windows 8's start menu is amazing. I love being able to organize my appications into different groups and seeing updates from certain applications without having to open them. It is absolutely an improvement over the start menu people have grown accustomed to from Windows 95 - Windows 7.
Bad wording on my part then, but you still haven't given a good argument as to why something that is suboptimal shouldn't exist on a platform.
Oh god, more opinions stated as facts.
You would still be able to click on the desktop tiles, it's just that you wouldn't always need to as you could just see the information at a glance. It's basically a setup like the Windows Phone home screen/app menu, and that works pretty well from what I've gathered.
If you're using it with a mouse and keyboard, I think the taskbar should always be displayed, even in Metro apps, unless a video is playing or something. It would help blur the lines between the two types of app if they were both treated the same.
Peterthumpa
Member
Because this is how Microsoft thinks it's possible to keep the Windows brand relevant by supporting legacy apps until they die. Also thinking in the corporate market, since a sales force for any given company using tablets running Windows 8, which can be managed by policies by IT and at the same time be used as a tablet for casual operations, really seems like a good idea. I think that their strategy is pretty clear. They did what you're saying for their mobile OS, by completely scraping Windows Mobile for Windows Phone and you can see that after 2 years and one major revision, it is yet to gain respectable momentum, even if it's considered by many the best mobile OS.
But for the mobile market, they could take the risk, as they did. For their main OS line? I don't think so. Releasing a new Windows without legacy support this late in this new changing market could be the beggining of the end for their OS branch.
Alx
Member
Now you're getting me confused. I'm not familiar with Windows Phone, how is its home screen different from the Windows8 Start screen ?
Yup, I hear you. I think you're totally right in how MS is thinking about it.
I'm just disappointed with the execution of this latest OS based on this mentality.
As for the second paragraph, they already did this with Windows RT. It's just that they decided RT should look just like Windows 8 but with legacy app support naturally cut out, due to the CPU architecture.
Peterthumpa
Member
I think that most importantly, due to pricing.
A lot of changes are bad, however. Having to switch to a separate full screen interface to search is bad, for example.
Correct, which is why most of them have keyboard accessories, and all of them work with usb kb/mice and bluetooth kb/mice. It's nice to be able to use full Office when needed. Or File Explorer. Or the command prompt if one so chooses. Options suck, I know.
Yes, for current Ivy Bridge ones yes. But Intel is working on these issues, and powerful hardware should be available by the end of next year that mitigate these things. Atom ones already address those issues, but the power might not be quite enough to do normal desktop duties, I haven't really seen any reviews of these guys yet. At least not by someone who knows wtf they are talking about.
Doesn't need to be for the most part.
Addressed above.
I find it quite nice actually. I look forward to the day when I can dock my tablet when I want a desktop experience(network attached storage of course) and undock my tablet when I want a nice tablet experience, and plug in a small keyboard for when I want a nice laptop experience. It isn't quite there, but it sure as hell is closer than anyone else is. One device to do everything I want.
dorkimoe
Member
So im working on someones computer, and its a windows 8 machine. Its a disaster in my opinion. I shouldnt have to install something to get the start button back, and just the way you maneuver around is horrible. I cant find anything in the settings, I cant find the control panel unless I search.... Wont be buying it at all
Again, subjective. I find the start screen to be pretty useful. I like bundling my commonly used programs and apps together, sort of like fences, but this way it doesn't clutter up my desktop. Some of the metro apps have been really nice too (the recipe ones, and the daily show app are pretty good) I can also check my stocks very quickly at a glance without having to open a browser page or a separate app for that:
Why? It's the same process, not sure why making it full screen is worse?
Windows 8 has been a great upgrade for me. The start page is a big improvement over the old start menu. At a glance tiles and the ability to pin "Deep Links" from apps is fantastic. The Device and Share Charms make sending,sharing and streaming data effortless. Windows 8 works great with a mouse and I really dont see why people are having trouble using one with the OS. Maybe they have not given it enough time. It is different but works well.
I think this hybrid OS was a smart move because I see the future of computers being hybrids. One app store. One OS. One device.
I think this hybrid OS was a smart move because I see the future of computers being hybrids. One app store. One OS. One device.
That's a fair call. I kinda like the idea of a fullscreen app, and hoped that the shadow of the taskbar would be enough...
But you're right; it works in Windows favour to make the differences between desktop programs and metro apps as homogenous as possible.
I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me by implying that what I say is "crazy" and imply that there is something wrong with my logic by putting logic in quotations when I take the time to clearly explain my viewpoint without insulting you.
If you had to click then what's the benefit over Windows 7? Did nobody use the rightmost bar in Windows 7 that you could hover over to make all open windows transparent or click on to minimize everything, showing you your desktop and sidebar gadgets immediately for either case? :/ If you hovered over you would just move the mouse again and go immediately back to what you were doing. Or if you saw something like a status update that you wanted to comment on, you could click the button, go to the gadget and do whatever, and click it again to restore your applications as they were.
Are these things present in Windows 8? iirc, they removed the sidebar gadgets at least.
To avoid feature creep and be a product that is well designed.
Not really? You can't just boil everything down to subjectivity. A hybrid laptop being used as a tablet offers the worst of both worlds -- the limited precision of a touchscreen and the extra weight, extra heat, and lower battery life of a laptop.
Alx
Member
Win+X
- Status