The Three Flavors of Windows 8 500
First time accepted submitter Kelerei writes "Windows 8 has been confirmed as the official name for the next x86/x64 version of Windows, which will be released in two editions: a home edition (simply named 'Windows 8') featuring an updated Windows Explorer, Task Manager, improved multi-monitor support and 'the ability to switch languages on the fly,' while a professional edition ('Windows 8 Pro') adds features for businesses and technical professionals such as encryption, virtualization and domain connectivity. Windows Media Center will not be included in the Pro edition and will be available separately as part of a 'media pack' add-on. A third edition, branded as 'Windows RT,' will be available for ARM-based systems."
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
You've been running Windows 8 on the Desktop? I'm not ranting, I'm interested. What's your setup? What do you do "normally"?
I'm asking because I'm more of the "tiled window manager" and "I want my windows where I want them" type, and I can hardly imagine working with something like Gnome 3, Unity or Metro (hell, I have trouble working with Explorer)...but that doesn't mean that I'm resistant to learning the benefits of those system.
BUT (Score:1, Interesting)
Windows 8: The Playskool OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually like the window management on Gnome 3. I miss the compiz grid feature, but gnome 3 is the first window manager that I actually use the "virtual desktop" feature...I use two monitors, and Gnome 3 only does the virtual desktop thing on one of them. that leaves the other for e-mail and IM windows that i want to keep visible all the time.
I've used unity and metro (in the consumer preview), and found them lacking. I think we've reached a point where we have so much choice, It doesn't really bother me that the Desktop paradigm is being experimented upon.
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Metro is about MS making a homogenous look and feel across all possible platforms, and thus, having to go to the least common denominator (cell phone interfaces) for all of them.
It's about attempting to leverage their PC market share to make a push into the tablet and cell markets.
Once you realize this, the rest follows naturally.
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that the start-menu is so messy that it needs a search is just face-palm bad.
I found the search feature to be the best thing added to the start menu since it was added to Windows. It actually made the damn thing usable again. I don't even bother navigating the menus now, I just type in the name of whatever I want and there it is (well not even the full name, usually a few letters is plenty). The really unfortunate part is it took so long to add this feature, because it would have made it functional from day 1. Even back in Win95 the start menu became cluttered (but at least in 95 it was an alphabetized clutter by default).
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you never use the metro apps, the goofy start screen just acts like a giant start menu, even with incremental search
Yes, but with the huge disadvantage that it's annoying to access. Instead of being a button on the screen, it's a full screen waste of space. Accessing it with a mouse is generally unreliable in my experience-- you have to hover your cursor near the edge of the screen, and it often doesn't actually pop up when you do that.
Re:Don't forget Windows 8 Enterprise.... (Score:3, Interesting)
All currently sold netbook/nettop Atoms are 64-bit. Yes, you can get 32-bit embedded Atoms. See here [cpu-world.com]. Click on the 32-bit filter. You'll notice all models starting with E, those are embedded ones. Ignore them. N270 and N280 are from 2008 and I don't think you can get those anymore. The ones starting with Z are, like the E series, thought for non-PC platforms.
Those starting with N are for "notebooks" (netbooks, whatever the name du jour), those starting D are for "desktops" (nettops...) 64-bit all of them (except for the above noted N270 abd N280)
Re:Can't wait!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea is basically that if you want to use something like your browser, email, an IDE, etc., there's no reason to have multiple windows up, since they'll just distract you from what you're doing.
Multiple windows aren't a distraction for me, they are a requirement. My normal working environment is a large terminal window to develop my code in, another terminal for actually running the code, a third terminal is usually open to examine logs related to testing the code. If I'm working on something web-based I'll also have a browser for testing the code. I need documentation open, which is usually in the form of several browser tabs and maybe an email or 2 open in Thunderbird tabs.
These windows are all related to a single project - the only alternative to having them all on screen at once would be to keep switching between them, whcih would be very distracting and counterproductive (I do have to do this when working on small-screen devices such as my 15.4" laptop, and I find it hard work).
Windows 7 and GNOME 3 (and possible others) have quick gestures for putting two windows on half of the screen each, but the idea is that generally you don't need more than that (although it would be nice if they had a way to handle it), and most things can just be left in a random place in the background (IMs, email, whatever you're not doing at this moment).
I use and like Gnome 3. But I place windows manually and wouldn't want it any other way. My browser is left maximised on my secondary (only 15") monitor, but nothing else ever gets maximised. The only time I've used the "half screen" maximisation feature is when comparing 2 network dumps in 2 separate Wireshark instances - it's handy for this, but I use it so rarely that I really wouldn't miss it.
I've come to the conclusion that having a desktop environment that supports a multitude of devices (from tiny-screen phones all the way up to massive-screen desktops, etc) is a Good Thing, but we have to stop forcing the paradigms of one type of device on another. On my phone, I want my browser maximised pretty much all the time because the screen is small, but on a desktop with a 24" screen I almost never want this. But I don't think there is a hard rule about whether to maximise or window applications: small screen sizes will tend to want most things maximised, big screen sizes will tend to want most things windows, but in all cases there are exceptions. In the middle, there are things like 10" tablets where you're often going to want things maximised, but there are considerable numbers of cases where you don't. For example, I often wouldn't want my instant messager maximised on a tablet (but sometimes I would), whilst I would usually want my browser maximised (but sometimes I wouldn't).
Since it seems to be very fuzzy whether to maximise or window things, I'm not sure what the best approach is for picking defaults. On the one hand, it sounds nice to try and heuristically figure out the probability that the user will want a certain application maximised on a certain sized screen, and therefore either maximise it or window it by default depending on what the calculated probabilities suggest (and give the user the ability to override this, possibly feeding back the user's override decision into the heuristic so it learns). However, on the other hand, this seems to violate the principle of least surprise - I usually like my computer to do predictable things in response to my mouse clicks, which such a system inherently prevents.