The Windows 8 Power Struggle: Metro Vs Desktop 590
MojoKid writes "Metro, Microsoft's new UI, is bold; a dramatic departure from anything the company has previously done in the desktop/laptop space, and absolutely great. It's tangible proof that Redmond really can design and build its own unique products and experiences. However, the transition to Metro's Start menu is jarring for some desktop users, and worse yet, Desktop mode and Metro don't mesh well at all. The best strategy Microsoft could take would be to introduce users to Metro via its included apps and through tablets, while prominently offering the option to maintain the Desktop environment. Power users who choose to use the classic UI for desktops and laptops can still be exposed to Metro via tablets and applications without being forced to wade through it on their way to do something important."
Please read this (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-consumer-preview-call-common-sense-142476 [winsupersite.com]
Also, try to spend a few minutes learning shortcuts etc. before dissing the experience. It's not a SP for Windows 7, it's a new OS.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/02/getting-starte [arstechnica.com]...
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/windows-8-tricks-tips-and-s [kotaku.com.au]...
And it will enable many devices like these that don't exist now:
Idea Pad Yoga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz2R9y9ZvkA&hd=1 [youtube.com]
Samsung x86 Tablet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-K1ELv6DE&hd=1 [youtube.com]
Try doing that with an iPad.(There are iPad-like ARM Windows 8 tablets too that won't run x86 apps but which will have Office).
83inch displays: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/29/2833173/windows-8-82-inch- [theverge.com]...
All these form factors tied in the with the vast Win32 ecosystem(except ARM tablets) and a single Touch-first Metro ecosystem.
It's interesting how the comments on Apple/iPad/Post-PC articles, financials of Apple/Dell/HP etc. state that "MS is dying in the Post-PC" era, but now when they come out with a solution to make a OS run on different form factors and to have tablets that are not just consumption devices, the comments on here are skewed towards "Why change something that works?". If PCs are really dying, why not attempt to fix that instead of standing by with their head in the sand(like RIMM)?
There will always be people unhappy with anything you build or change. They should just go with their vision of what they think is right and that's what they did. They envision that with Windows 8, most new monitors will be touch enabled because of the demand so that for some functions(like clicking on links), people can use touch.
You may disagree with the vision, but you can't disagree that there is a method behind the madness.
"Designers" are ruining UIs all over the place. (Score:3, Insightful)
Failed web "designers" are ruining GUI applications left and right. It doesn't matter if they're open-source apps or if they're closed-source commercial apps. These self-labeled "UI designers" and "usability experts" get involved with a popular project that had a usable UI, and they completely trash it.
This has happened to GNOME. This has happened to Firefox. This is now apparently even happening to Windows!
Somehow, these "designers" have managed to create UIs that are far worse than even non-artistic programmers came up with. Firefox is a perfect example of this. The earlier releases had very usable UIs. Then came Firefox 4, and the entire UI was shit upon. Each subsequent release has fucked up the UI more and more. Now we don't have menus by default, we don't have a status bar by default, and Firefox is damn near unusable without heavy tweaking to re-enable such basic UI elements!
The only appropriate thing to do is to shun these people. It doesn't matter which project it is, or what sort of application is being developed. Refuse their contributions. Refuse their ideas. Shoot down their suggestions in mailing list discussions. Don't allow them direct commit access to any source code. Ensure that bugs are logged regarding their horrible designs, especially when usability is impacted.
We need to go back to software developers creating UIs. Maybe they're not artists, and maybe the UIs they built weren't "pretty" (a.k.a full of curved corners and gradients), but at least they were intuitive and we could use them to get real work done efficiently. We can't do that any longer, now that "designers" are trashing every UI they come into contact with.
How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see; I work on two 22 inch monitors. I can move from the far left edge to the far right edge with a three inch movement of my mouse. Now you want me to have to lean toward the monitors and move my arm over three feet to accomplish the same thing. How ergonomic! How NEW! How efficient!
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
You've missed the point. Why do Microsoft believe that people want or need touch monitors? Why do Microsoft believe large-dimension touch interfaces are better interface than a mouse?
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting how the comments on Apple/iPad/Post-PC articles, financials of Apple/Dell/HP etc. state that "MS is dying in the Post-PC" era, but now when they come out with a solution to make a OS run on different form factors and to have tablets that are not just consumption devices, ...
Tablets don't have to be just for consumption - people are already using iPads and the like for creative purposes. But, when you think about it, most of what the typical person uses even a full-blown computer for tends to be mainly consumption and communication - Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, email, chat, etc. Even for work, the most content creation they do involves making a Word document or an Excel spreadsheet.
As far as that "vast Win32 ecosystem" goes... remember that Windows tablets aren't exactly a new idea. Microsoft has tried - and failed - to leverage that vast ecosystem to make Windows-based phones and tablets a success before. Time will tell regarding Metro, of course; but while you seem to think their success is a foregone conclusion, recent history shows otherwise. It comes down to whether or not Microsoft learned from their previous failures, which is something I, for one, am not convinced of.
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with Thurrot's analysis that "the desktop is just an app." Oh really? The desktop is still there, with Explorer, the taskbar, the system tray, and every other feature the desktop has ever had, and Thurrot wants us to believe this is somehow just some little "app" that's running inside of Metro? Hardly. The desktop is still the desktop. It is Windows.
What Windows 8 has done is given us this new launcher application, called Metro, which accepts plug-ins, called apps, and which will now launch automatically when you login to the system and again every time you push the Start button. Metro feels like the ultimate terminate-and-stay-resident program from the 80s, where every time you push the hotkey it takes over your entire screen.
Also, try to spend a few minutes learning shortcuts etc. before dissing the experience. It's not a SP for Windows 7, it's a new OS.
No, it isn't. It really isn't. Keyboard shortcuts do not make an "OS." The fact that the device drivers for every weird hardware device on my laptops carried over from Windows 7 to Windows 8 without a hitch demonstrates that the two are essentially the same OS.
What Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is it has taken a UI that works and put a big curtain in front of it (Metro) so that every time you want to use the OS the way you're accustomed to doing, you have to push the curtain aside. And as soon as you push the wrong button (the Windows key) or you want to launch a new application, the curtain drops down again.
They envision that with Windows 8, most new monitors will be touch enabled because of the demand so that for some functions(like clicking on links), people can use touch.
Just because I can use touch doesn't mean I will want to. I am not going to be reaching across my desk to click on links when there's a mouse sitting in my right hand. I don't need a new repeat strain injury [infoworld.com] and I don't want to smear my monitor with fingerprints. Poking around in midair with your fingers looks cool in movies, but in practice what we do now is more efficient, which makes it preferable. It's not logical to get rid of the more efficient way of doing things for the sake of something that looks cool.
You may disagree with the vision, but you can't disagree that there is a method behind the madness.
I don't disagree that there's a method. But that doesn't mean it's not madness. When your friend guns his engine and says, "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing -- we can make it across the canyon," it's time to get out of the car.
Re:Nobody actually uses tablets. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, try to spend a few minutes learning shortcuts etc.
And Windows users accuse the *nix crowd of being arrogant because we say "rtfm" too often for their tastes.
A lot of people are flippin' lost without visual cues. 8 has taken visual cues and turned them invisible and put them in hot corners and stupid shit like that.
Metro on the desktop is a goddamned failure. Microsoft is doing this simply because they can, and there is almost a cult-like movement within Microsoft about metro that if you don't like it, then there is something wrong with you. This is exemplified by your statement here.
--
BMO
I think it is a fine idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is they fucked up the setup on the desktop. On an embedded device, Metro is everything. Makes sense, it is the embedded GUI, and they can't run PC apps. So you fire up the device, Metro is what you get.
However on a PC, the desktop should be what you get, Metro should be something you open in it. That way you can run Metro apps if you want, which is cool, but on the terms of a desktop. You can let them run full screen, or not, put them in a window. It'll seem "full screen" to them, they'll just be told that window is their screen.
The reason is the multi-window paradigm is what works for desktop computing. It is an efficient way to work with multiple programs, which is what almost everyone does. Even non tech types. It is efficient to be able to open up multiple things, arrange them as you like, switch between them easily, and so on.
The smart phone idea is not an efficient way to work, it is just a necessary one given the limitations of the platform. Trying to force it on the desktop is rather stupid.
I can see the benefits of sharing a codebase, but the fundamental interface is going to need to remain different.
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. The iPad's UI is significantly different to desktop Mac OS, exactly because apple managed to realise one simple thing. The traditional desktop metaphor UI doesn't work when you hold it in your hand and touch it.
The reason past tablets weren't successful was because they tried to cram a destop UI onto a tablet.
Microsoft are making the exact same mistake again, only this time in reverse. They're trying to cram a perfectly acceptable tablet UI onto a desktop platform. Worse, they're doing it in a way that only half deprecates the old way of doing things. The result is that they have a tablet UI that doesn't work well because you're not using a tablet; and that when you actually try to do anything, you immediately get shifted into a different UI paradigm, because the apps haven't all been recoded.
It's a complete UI disaster, and perfectly sums up microsoft –copy the trend, do something that they claim is new, and don't update anything at all to integrate well into it. The result –a cludge.
Re:Please read this (Score:4, Insightful)
You've missed the point. Why do Microsoft believe that people want or need touch monitors? Why do Microsoft believe large-dimension touch interfaces are better interface than a mouse?
They're just giving people the choice. Remember, a billion people use Windows. A significant percentage of them might want to use touch monitors. The rest can ignore that and move on. Did they remove the mouse support in Windows and I didn't get the memo?
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't use touch? Remove all the Metro apps from the Start screen and pin only your desktop apps and you'll end up with something like Windows 7 with a glorified start menu.
That's the problem though. Sure, you can reconfigure it to be like Windows 7...but WTF? If that's better then why are they wasting everybody's time developing something that serves only to make everybody turn it back off?
Which is the same problem with the dichotomy between tablets and desktops. There is a reason that iOS is not MacOS and Android is not Ubuntu or Mint or ChromeOS. What Microsoft is obviously trying to do is get everyone on the desktop used to their tablet UI so that they can sell tablets and have people be familiar with them. But that's total fail, because having a tablet UI on a desktop is crap. And if everybody changes it back right away then they both never become familiar with it and associate it with fail (on top of the fail of not running legacy apps on ARM) so that the tablets get associated with fail and nobody buys them. Or, as is far more likely, just nobody buys Windows 8 to begin with -- every business I'm aware of is planning to stick with Windows 7 indefinitely.
Apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's my 'app' for DBA activity? Where's my simple one click 'app' that monitors hundreds of servers, routers, switches? Where's my 'app' that automates my build processes? Where's my app that gives my complex analysis of all my interconnected nodes? You wont find them--not soon and not on 'markets'. Because these are complex intertwined multi-APPLICATION, to use the full word, work-flows that require desktops or complex usage of scripting and consoles. Sorry but for power use, it's just the way it is, in this decade and probably a few to come. These things can be done well and simply, but not without serious power-tools and planning.
Let's me honest, computing has been around for decades now, and even though on the consumer level 'apps' reign supreme it seems, there will always always always be power users who will need more complex environments for the vast array of software suites, tools, languages, and utilities needed to maintain and administer complex networks for build processes or whatever. Perhaps there will be a day when it is all unified. But that would require vast cooperation across industries, standards bodies, companies, open-sources houses, etc. Until some defacto design standard from layer 1 to 7 and from user space to kernals to whatever is implemented across the industry, nothing will ever be 'simple apps' while separate unique tools and such exist--thus guaranteeing the lifetime of the terminal and the desktop. It seems we are now defining apps as "guis that are flashy, sleek, use large rounded buttons, and have limited functionality', well, there's many of those out there. End rant. (the word app just sets me off)
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't agree more. This new UI has to be the most unintuitive GUI i've used on a desktop. Although I'm sure it's fine on a touch screen, it was painful to use with a mouse, took me 20 minutes just to find common items, a few mins to find the login options, etc.
This from a geek. I can't imagine what my folks would do with this, other than to turn ape like, beat not he screen and make lots of jarring screeches in frustration.
Re:Please read this (Score:3, Insightful)
So If I had the option to change the interface on the OSX would be a bad OS?
You just don't like change, and assume MS is going to be bad.
I've used it. I like it. I also use OSX and iOS. I like them as well.
Now, what I don't like is what they did you it on the xBox. Used it to shove ads at you in the squares.
Another option - fail and fall back (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Designers" are ruining UIs all over the place. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending on the product, the developer may not even be too familiar with the actual user's job. Take for instance utility power management. There is a whole ecosystem of tools that are used by people who work at big utility companies. A developer on one of these applications is probably intimately familiar with the specific application, but the likelihood is that they've never worked for a power management company. Do they know what the user does during their normal day at work? Do they know what other applications the user uses? How does their application fit into the user's day?
In such cases, you actually have a situation where the developer may make bad decisions in UI design. The developer may not realize that the user doesn't sit in front of their application all day. Rather, the user may use the application for a sub-set of their work, and use information from one application in conjunction with other applications. The developer of the application may think "well, duh, why wouldn't the user know to look under menuX->optionY->wizardZ to do that?" The reality is, the user probably isn't interested in knowing the ins and outs of the application they are using. If the information they are looking for isn't apparently available, then it might as well not exist.
Is this the way things should be? Perhaps not. Perhaps the user should spend their time reading manuals and becoming intimately familiar with the product. However, this isn't the reality. This is where a good design team can come in. A product can deliver everything functionally, but still be considered a failure if the user isn't able to easily accomplish their goals.
I realize I've digressed from the topic at hand, which is the Metro UI (which I really don't like from what I've seen). However, I think it is worth challenging the assumption that developers are the best people responsible for developing UI's.
Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, nobody likes it.
Any time you find yourself explaining Why People Should Like Your Stuff if they Only Used It Right, it means you have failed Marketing 101 and need to turn in your diploma, because you obviously weren't paying attention in class.
(my first degree was in Marketing, fwiw)
Re:Nobody actually uses tablets. (Score:4, Insightful)
I pretty much only see people with e-book readers on planes, not "tablets" per se. There's a big difference between the two, even though it's quite possible to make an e-book reader work like a tablet; the use cases are quite different. Ebook readers are great for reading (esp. with the e-ink screens), but that's about it.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
You obviously haven't used Ubuntu since they changed to the crappy new Unity UI, which is basically a touchscreen UI converted to be used on a desktop. Their eventual goal is to have Unity on both desktops and tablets and phones. Of course, most Linux desktop users are rebelling and switching to Mint or other distros because of this.
It took me maybe six months to install a version of Ubuntu with Unity, and all that time I heard nothing but bitching about it on /. Now that I have it installed, I don't really mind it. It is a little "Fisher-Priceified," but it is nowhere near as bad as Metro.
In fact, though I may be a square for saying so, I really have no problem with Unity. The desktop is still visually pleasing and the Unity UI doesn't get in my way. It still feels a little bit awkward for me, because I don't really use a Linux desktop for my day-to-day work, so I haven't had much time to get used to it. But the important thing is that I feel like that awkwardness is my issue. I don't feel that way with Metro.
Children's Toys (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are all my computer interfaces being transformed into children's toys?
Why are my menu bars, tables, and text boxes being replaced by coloured icons dancing around the screen. Am I expected to just intuitively "feel" where all the programs and options are now?
This isn't just an OS problem. It happening across the program spectrum and I blame the influence of smartphones and similar touch oriented devices.Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. Using one is like navigating a theme park without a map. Eventually you'll want to just find a place to sit down but you'll only get more lost among the theme rides and hot dog stands.
If this nonsense gets rolled out onto computers that people are supposed to be working on, it will either precipitate a recession or an injunction by employers groups. Either way, I'm sticking to menubars.
Re:Nobody actually uses tablets. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
To the poster on Ubuntu and Unity. Initially I was very much against it as well. But I have become very used to it. Though Unity != Metro... Unity is a search based mechanism to find your app, which can be pinned to the toolbar. Once you grasp that idea it actually is pretty clever. I really like it now...
Now with respect to the tiles. I find them an absolute waste of time. My problem is that tiles are there to show you live information of the app. So far so good. But here is the problem... The space and information to be shown is a waste of time. It works well on a phone because the information is targeted. But on the desktop I want more general information. Their example is a stock price. Sounds good, but as I trade the market I don't just have one stock, but 250. How on earth will that be displayed? It will be a mess.
I think it is a failing on behalf of Microsoft. But that is to be expected. After all it is Sinosky who is in charge and well he wants Windows everywhere. Remember this goes back to Windows on the smart phone. The irony is that the Windows smartphone predated the iPhone in terms of functionality. What the iPhone did and excelled at is that you could use a finger instead of stylus. Now Microsoft is taking the opposite approach, but still the same, everything is touch! Wankers! They have no grasped the basic that you talk of, a tablet != smartphone != desktop computer != notebook.
All we're asking for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably feels awkward because it's not a very good UI, no matter how nice it may look at first glance. Traditional desktop environments have had 30 years to mature to the state you see in systems like OS X, Win7, KDE, and XFCE, and they work well with systems with big monitors, keyboards, and mice. If you don't feew "awkward" with one of these traditional UIs, but you do feel awkward with a new UI, it's not you, it's the UI that's the problem. The name says it all: "Unity". They're trying to merge desktop and mobile touchscreen UIs into one, and it's a bad idea and won't work. Waving your arms around like in Minority Report simply isn't as efficient as moving a mouse, just like using a mouse on a cellphone would be an ergonomic nightmare.
it's not just resisting change (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I resist change just like everyone else. But that's not what is going on here.
Monitors are getting bigger. I'm doing more things at once. I want better ways of managing that. But Metro just gives me one thing at a time. Sorry, that's not a solution to the problem. That's going back to the original Macintosh.
Apple isn't perfect, but at least they've been trying some new ideas. I don't think the new ideas on screen management have been all that successful, but at least they're attacking the right problem.
At the moment, nobody has a better idea for a smart phone or a tablet than to show one app at a time. The only way W8 makes sense is if they're adding a piece for portable devices, and said "while we're at it, let's let desktop guys use it too." Fine. But only if they realize that the desktop systems still need new ideas as well. And if I were doing a ground-up redesign, I'd consider whether we might be ready for a better approach with tablets as well. The new iPad has more pixels than many monitors. I'm not sure one app at a time should be the only way to use it.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:3, Insightful)
er, then use the mouse. You can use it to move windows! Which you can't do on a phone/tablet, partly because of screen size, and partly because with finger-dragging, it would suck. Therefore, it's not a tablet UI. I think the source of confusion is people saw some big icons and went "WHAAAA!!, where's the 1990s taskbar gone?!!!!" and couldn't be arsed to try hitting the windows key. oh look, there's my "window list". wasn't hard.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing my point. The end goal of all these radical UI changes is to force everyone to use a touchscreen interface on their desktop PCs. These people aren't going to stop with having a touchscreen-esque UI on desktop PCs, they want to have a single UI for all devices. Where do you think they got the name "Unity"?
BTW, what's a "Windows" key? I don't see one of those on my IBM Model M keyboard. And besides, if you have to press some special key to see which applications are running on your PC, then there's something seriously wrong with the UI. A taskbar makes perfect sense here, as you can see all the things running without any special actions. WTF is the point of hiding that? To save some screen real estate? Why? I have two 24" monitors; screen real estate is not in short supply here. On a tablet or a phone, then yes screen real estate is in short supply, which is exactly why those devices need different UIs.
Re:I tried it. It fails. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are no on screen visuals I'm lost.
This is very true. It's a problem with a lot of touch-centric UIs: There are no onscreen hints or anything to explain to you how to use the UI.
Anyone who has ever used a word processor can sit down with Microsoft Word and write a letter. There will probably be things you don't know how to do, so you'll end up searching the Ribbon to find them. But that's just it -- you can find them. There will be icons there and the icons will have labels that say things like "Insert Date/Time."
Metro, on the other hand, has a few clever icons, but they don't necessarily mean anything to someone who has never seen them before. Some of the other functions involve gestures or moving the cursor to just the right part of the screen to activate a feature. I found I had to stumble around awhile before I knew how some of the most basic navigational controls worked.
Note: I didn't say search around, as you'd have to do with the Ribbon. I said stumble around, meaning I had to try mouse movements and push icons without knowing what they were actually going to do. Inevitably that meant I'd end up activating controls I hadn't meant to. I might luck out and find the thing I want, or I might immediately think "Undo, Undo, Undo" ... but of course, Undo might have been the thing I was looking for in the first place. This is a lousy way to learn a UI. It's a step back from what we've grown accustomed to.
Re:Please read this (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple and Microsoft have both failed to fully realize the technology needed for high-DPI displays. Apple isn't really doing the complicated scaling in iOS that OS X and Windows have been capable of. They're just doubling the pixels. Sure Apple has the first high-DPI displays, but they're going the easy route of simple doubling.
I don't blame Apple or Microsoft for not following through on the development of scalable UIs either. High-DPI displays haven't caught on because 1080p panels became incredibly cheap. It was a lot easier to sell a 24" 1080p panel than it was to create a 200-DPI+ 24" panel. Since there's no demand on the display end of the chain, Apple and Microsoft have predictably not continued development on their scalable UI technologies. I blame HDTV, not Apple or Microsoft.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
+1.
You can even hide the taskbar on all these UI's if you want the damn space back. I have a 1920x1080 screen on this laptop and leave the taskbar open and two tabs tall, since I have a zillion terminals and copies of Evince running. On my netbook it's one tab tall and I hide it sometimes. On a phone I'd probably want to hide it all the time, except when I specifically want it.
The taskbar is the most useful thing a UI can do. Don't muck it up by absorbing the action "launch a copy of X" into it (I do that far less often than I switch windows). Don't make me hit modifier keys to get it unless I want to.
Re:Apps (Score:4, Insightful)
Really trying. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really trying to work with this. Other than Metro, Windows 8 isn't bad. It's actually a marked improvement over Windows 7. The biggest change is the number of windows I can manage and keep open with 4 gigs of RAM. Memory seems to be cycling by itself with no third party software, registry hacks, or manual optimization. Silverlight is better on my 2gb Gforce card. Netflix is clean, and looking great. On Windows 7, the picture was muddier. So in terms of the things I care about (lots of open windows and netflix) Windows 8 is a boom.
What I'm not impressed with is the way Metro is locked down. I downloaded Visual Studio 11 beta so I could start writing Metro apps, and was immediately reminded that Microsoft will be approving any and all Metro apps, but they're letting me run my own stuff out of the kindness of their ever loving little hearts. That annoyed me, and it made me question my motivation for wanting to write Metro apps in the first place.
I mean, I can write an Android app today, compile it into an APK, and it'll run on any Android device within the scheme I compile for. Google doesn't and shouldn't care about the apps I write, and I like it that way. I don't really see the point of building something in the first place when someone who has nothing to do with anything can control my ability to publish it. If there's any chance of rejection at all, why should I bother to begin with?
I'm not learning new platforms because I like new platforms (well, I am, kina), I'm doing it because I want to have viable programs that I can do things with.
Screwing with my ability to publish my work is not a way to launch a new product.
I'm sorry. It's totally unacceptable.
Re:I tried it. It fails. (Score:5, Insightful)
But are you retarded? You can't remember the name of something but you can recognize thousands of icons designed for 16x16 display?
You don't have to be retarded to be slowed down by a less-than-optimal interface. Every brain cycle you have to burn figuring out a sub-optimal GUI is one less brain cycle available for actually getting your work done.
Little things like this might seem trivial, and they are, but the cumulative effect can build up to the point where your productivity is significantly less than it could have been.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need a giant list of all the programs on my computer lying around on my screen waiting for me to click them, especially if it takes away from my ability to do the above.
I...don't think that's mandatory. I'm pretty oblivious to all this unity nonsense since I generally stick to the LTS releases (we'll see whether I decide to switch to Mint after 12.04 is final), but assuming it works anything like the dock in OS X, you get the behavior you're asking for by just taking all the applications out of the dock. Then you open one and it shows up there, just like the task bar.
But the default behavior is useful because you can put the half dozen programs you keep running 99.9% of the time there, which makes it easier for you to open them if you ever reboot your computer (like if the power goes off).
That said, I get what you're saying. It seems to me that half of Linux users are software developers and Canonical has decided they want the other half. The way you design a UI for a programmer is totally different than how you design a UI for your standard issue Farmville customer. Which has actually been one of the problems with Linux previously: The UIs have all been designed to work well for software developers, not so much for others. So I can appreciate what Canonical is trying to do here: They're trying to make something that could convert less computer savvy users to Linux. But now there are a lot of people who don't understand that they aren't the target market anymore, who don't like the new UI because it wasn't designed for them.
Re:"Designers" are ruining UIs all over the place. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you didn't quite mean this, but it's a very one sided statement. There are novices and experts, and UIs shouldn't just be designed for novices. In fact, for software that gets used a lot, a user stays a novice only a small amount of time, before transitioning to advanced status. So a UI should be designed primarily for advanced users and experts first, and novices second, provided that doesn't interfere with advanced use too much.
The trouble with outside UI designers is that they think like novices, which they often are when they initially join a project. So their priorities are all wrong, and must be fought. Alternatively, they should prove that they already understand advance usage inside out, and then argue that a change is going to improve novice usage without worsening advanced usage.
Re:Please read this (Score:4, Insightful)
So not only are you an astroturfer, you're a busy astroturfer going from site to site dropping anything and everything to battle "bias" about Windows 8.
Because Windows 8 needs defenders, since it can't stand on its own on its merits.
There is no shortage of Microsoft PR sites. Go back to ZDNET.
--
BMO
Re:Please read this (Score:4, Insightful)
The big fallacy people seem to make on this topic is that newer = better. This is not always the case. It's great that a new class of device has revolutionized certain tasks, but forcing their interface onto existing systems that cover the rather large corner cases for them REDUCES choice for those who need/prefer these other systems. This is being done completely for marketing reasons. There is no benefit to the consumer at all.
Have a touch based tuned environment for touch devices, and a traditional desktop environment for desktops.. make it an install and/or control panel option as it is something you'd know up front you want (you are installing on a tablet or a full PC). what ms is doing is forcing touch environments on traditional desktops by having the traditional desktop buried as a metro app that forces you to go back to it to select new applications. making application launch, task switching, and window management visually disruptive moves on a phone might make sense, but not on a desktop with a 23" monitor. tacking mouse support into this 'fullscreen start menu' doesn't help its case either.
Finally, I dont' consider giving touch platforms 'a boost' at the expense of desktops a good thing.. they should both sink or swim on their own merits as they serve different needs as surely as a hummer H1 and F1 mclaren do. (there's your car analogy!)
not the UI (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the UI.
It's the way MS treats its users. The main difference between MS (who couldn't get rid of the "Start" menu for close to 15 years even though their final user testing prior to launching windows 95 revealed that it was a horrible, broken idea) and Apple (who can seemingly come up with a new paradigm for the iPhone/iPad and have it accepted) is in how they think.
MS thinks like developers. So when they have an idea they like, they force it on the users. And if the users don't accept it, they force it some more.
Apple thinks like designers. If they have an idea, they test it out and refine it until the users love it.
And that's why this would have worked if the one Steve had come up with the idea, but it'll be an epic fail in the hands of the other Steve.
Re:Please read this (Score:5, Insightful)
A significant percentage of them might want to use touch monitors.
Unlikely. The full sized touch monitor has always been relegated to niche uses. For example, we see them in Point of Sale, ATM and various forms of vending or other kiosk like setups. All of these devices, regardless of their internal components, are configured to run a single specialized application from which the user cannot, at least by design, deviate. Furthermore, these devices are almost always encountered in public places and are used by many different users for specific and time limited operations in that context. Compare that with more typical home or work use patterns where sessions are longer and the keyboard is generally kept within easy reach of the fingertips with the mouse in close proximity. This is an efficient setup for general computing use, whereas reaching across the desk to touch the screen repeatedly is not. Touch works in the hand-held and portable format because the use cases and ergonomics are almost completely different from those of the more traditional desktop. Will some people want to use touch screens as their desktop display(s)? Perhaps. Will those people represent a majority or even just a substantial minority of users? Almost certainly not.
The rest can ignore that and move on.
Based upon the reviews of the preview release, it's not that simple. The interface is designed to emphasize Metro, imposing itself at the expense of the traditional desktop and forcing users to wrestle with it in order to get their work done. This is particularly irksome in the desktop usage scenarios because few people would prefer a touch-based interface with a single full screen app at a time over the more traditional windowing system common in modern desktop operating systems. Indeed, the windowing systems now present in Windows 7, OSX and the various Linux distros represent decades of accumulated experience and feedback from professional, business, scientific and home users. A radical departure from this well defined and honed interface, ala Metro, is the height of hubris and foolishness. The traditional desktop users, who're still Microsoft's bread and butter, will punish them severely for missteps or other nonsense as they did with Vista (which was itself a less radical departure than Metro).
Microsoft would be well advised to tread cautiously here. It's alright to pursue new markets with new concepts. However, this must NOT be done at the expense of existing users, especially those with professional needs. If the new concepts have merit, they will stand on their own without forced attempts to get people into using them. Finally, to anyone from Microsoft reading this: Heed the warnings of the Win 8 / Metro reviewers and don't ignore them. Remember the lessons of Vista: users will NOT accept software that gets in their way and doesn't work how they want to work, no matter how innovative or cool you think it is. The desktop and mobile touch worlds are DIFFERENT and ought to be treated as such. Don't screw this up.
Re:How ergonomic! (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't, and never has been. Citation, or it's bollocks.
Alt-M, then. Or top left corner. Cripes. Ever tried reading instructions?
It's cluttered, it abbreviates names, and yes, it saves realestate.
So you have 2 24" monitors, but you can't get a modern mechanical/microswitched keyboard to replace your model M? Try the Filco Majestic touch.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)