Slashdot Mirror
The Windows 8 Power Struggle: Metro Vs Desktop
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."
http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows8/windows-8-consumer-preview-call-common-sense-142476
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...
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/windows-8-tricks-tips-and-s...
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
Samsung x86 Tablet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-K1ELv6DE&hd=1
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-...
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.
This space for rent.
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!
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.
I hate to say this--but this concept of 'Apps' that everybody is latching on to--it is a huge pile of steaming buzzword. Yes their are applications, but the concept that all of computing can be neatly tucked and packed into an easily marketable single purpose flashy shiny big round button GUI software as a service plug in API model full of synergism and one-click-wonder wow--perhaps, but not for the power users, not for enterprise. There may be a day, but it isn't this decade IMO. I understand how consumers want this and blah blah rah grandma simplicity blah new age computing blah ease of use apple blah, but I'm here to comment about Apps and how I hear that word used in the wrong places (IMO).
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)
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
All I want is an option in the Control Panel that says "Completely disable Metro UI. I understand this will prevent me from installing, launching or utilizing Metro Apps. This will enable the classic Start Menu and will make the Classic Desktop your only operating environment." Problem solved. Just fucking humor us.
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.