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."
MS had, basically, two options: create a new brand for an OS tailored for post-PC devices, or continue with what they had. They chose to create a new (and pretty good, actually) interface in Metro, but then apply it to both post-PC devices and PCs and brand it as Windows in both places. I think that I would have gone the other way, creating a Metro brand to go with the interface, and tailoring it even more closely to post-PC systems, while keeping the Win7 interface on the desktop, and sharing the underlying kernel and as many APIs as possible between the two variants. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not; it was certainly a bold decision, given the success that Apple and Google have had with specific post-PC brands and interfaces.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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?
Money. Microsoft probably doesn't give a crap what people actually want. Imagine you take all Windows users today, and push them into an environment where the primary access to everything is through an app store model you control. Now think about how Apple makes money on everything that happens within their iPad/iPhone devices, etc.
I don't think Microsoft wants you to use the desktop anymore. It probably doesn't matter how much you bitch about it, there is probably too much money on the table.
You may disagree with the vision, but you can't disagree that there is a method behind the madness.
The problem with Microsoft, and a lot of us have been around long enough to see it repeatedly, is that when they decide that something is shiny and new, they drop all ongoing development of everything else like it doesn't even exist any more, even if the new thing is not a suitable replacement for the old thing.
When Microsoft decided that XAML was the "Way Forward" for rich web applications, they moved all but one guy off the IE team and into the Visual Studio and Expression teams to develop things like the improved XML editor, the designers, etc... Now, as a developer, I find those improvements very useful, but meanwhile there was one guy left of the IE 'team' doing just security fixes for years. This is why there was such a huge gap between IE6 and IE7, and why IE7 was such a small improvement compared to the progress made by Firefox and WebKit in the same time period.
Now, if you're a XAML-only programmer, then Microsoft was being innovative and moving forward. To HTML-based web application programmers they were being stupid and counter-productive, dragging the entire Internet down to the lowest common denominator that was IE6. That made a lot of people very upset with them, and rightly so. There was no way XAML could ever replace HTML, because it was tied to the .NET Framework in practice, which is not cross platform. A HTML replacement has to be cross-platform. That didn't stop them from ignoring HTML for half a decade.
With Windows 8, Microsoft is doing the exact same thing again. If you're a phone or tablet programmer, then Microsoft is innovative and moving forward. For desktop users -- Microsoft's biggest market -- they are being stupid and counter-productive, dragging the entire Desktop world down to a lowest common denominator with limited devices that don't have keyboards and mice. The walled garden of WinRT applications can never replace desktop applications, because the APIs are deliberately limited to suit the tablet environment. They have to be, otherwise apps would kill battery life or introduce vulnerabilities. A new framework has to be more than just a Tablet API or GUI, but that won't stop Microsoft from ignoring "classic" Windows applications for the next half a decade.
It's not just the GUI, Microsoft's other technologies have been suffering too from a lack of newness an shinyness. For example, their C++ standards compliance is woeful: the next release amounts to little more than some additional header files -- basically whatever one of their interns could whip up in a month, instead of a real revamp of the core compiler technology to have significantly new features. This is because they were too busy coming up with yet another bastardised non-standard version of C++ so that they can call WinRT APIs efficiently. Don't even think of asking for C99 support!
Sure, nobody is being forced to use WinRT, or tiles, or tablets, but if you're not using them, then you're using APIs and systems that will basically stop dead in the water, which in the computer world is the same as going backwards. Microsoft is atrocious at "seeing things through", because of their short attention span. For example, did you know that both Vista and Windows 7 natively support higher color depths than 24-bit, and GUI scaling? Had Microsoft kept going with that, our desktops could have had "double resolution" just like tablets, 36-bit deep color, wider gamuts, 200 DPI, and a bunch of things by now. But nooo... it was shiny then for a couple of years, and then Microsoft got bored and dropped all ongoing development of that as a feature. They even have a JPG-like image format that supports all of those better color features, but they never had more than some demo code written. Meanwhile, Apple demonstrated the value of technology that Microsoft had been sitting on for years, and suddenly everybody wants an iPad 3 with a Retina Display. Sigh...
My fundamental problem with Unity and all of the hellspawn UI's that copy OSX is that they conflate the two concepts of "make window XYZ the active one, and maximize it if possible" and "launch an instance of program XYZ". These tasks really have nothing to do with each other, other than both resulting, at the end, in program XYZ being on top.
The most common window-manager task I do is to switch from one window to another. GNOME, very sensibly, gives me a taskbar with all of the things running, and I can click on the one I want, and see at a glance what I've got open and how many instances of each. This is important -- this is the main fucking thing I want my window manager to do for me, is fucking manage my windows.
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. On the rare instance when I want to launch a new program, I'll fish around in a menu for it, or hit some magic keystroke (like alt-f2) and type its name. If I really want a big list of my common programs, I'll hit Ctrl-Alt-D and pick one from the icons that I've put on my desktop for that purpose. Or I'll even program a hotkey for it (ctrl-alt-T shits out a new terminal window on my system).
This is even worse for Unix folks, half of whose programs tend to be terminals. How people use OSX for scientific computing is beyond me. Just show me my fucking taskbar and get everything else that I didn't ask for out of my way.
Terminal in OS X supports tabs. I don't have to use the dock that often to switch terminals. I'm in a terminal constantly and it doesn't get in the way. I'll agree that iOS is not a good desktop UI, but OS X has not (yet) turned into that. Apple hasn't made the Microsoft mistake yet.
I think the real problem is that many people who design user interfaces have given up on desktops prematurely. There will always be a need for a real desktop for development and several other tasks. it might be the minority, but it has a place. If you think about it for a minute, it's obvious why all these UI idiots are jumping at the bit for reinventing the wheel, it's something new. They can actually do something significant that might get them fame or credibility if it's a success. It's the biggest opportunity since the graphical user interface. Of course, the GUI never replaced everything and we still have terminals. When the tablet people realize that the traditional desktop isn't going away, maybe they'll get better at accommodating people like me who still want a desktop GUI and a terminal along with the touch interfaces in places it makes sense.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone