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."
I think Microsoft Operating Systems follow the trek movie rule: Every other release sucks.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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
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!
I travel a lot, all over Europe, North America and Asia, and I've come to realize that tablets are basically a myth. While there is a lot of hype around them, and many have been sold, almost nobody actually uses them!
During my travels, I see people using cell phones. I see people using smart phones. I see people using laptops. I see people using netbooks. I see people using desktops. But it's extremely rare to see anyone using tablets. I see literally thousands of other people using smart phones for every tablet user I see.
I visit all sorts of environments, from huge corporate offices, to parks, to restaurants, to planes, to universities and colleges, to airports, to train stations, to city squares, to government offices, to subways, to cafes, to so many other places. Given the amount of traveling I do and the huge number of people I see in any given day, and given how much we hear about tablets, I should be constantly seeing people use tablets. But I just don't.
I think that they're the kind of device that somebody buys because of the marketing hype or because they sound like they might be useful, but then in practice they turn out to be feeble and impractical. Then they sit there on a bookshelf or table top, completely unused, until they're all but forgotten about.
I'm sure a bunch of people are going to reply to this saying how they find tablets useful in some very niche situation, but these are indeed very niche cases. The widespread usage of tablets just isn't there, like it is with smart phones or even netbooks. The popularity of tablets is a marketing myth, I suspect, rather than a reality.
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?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
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.
#DeleteChrome
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 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.
Breakfast served all day!
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
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...
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.
Did you try pressing the power button on the PC? If that doesn't work, hold it down for five seconds.
Every time I have to do that, it feels like i'm holding a pillow over my PC's face. "Shhh....shhhhh. It will all be over soon..."
I'm Japanese and I can tell you we don't make octopus this way.