Slashdot Mirror
Aero Glass UI No More On Windows 8
New submitter closer2it writes with news of interface changes in Windows 8. From the article: "Microsoft has revealed that it has made some big changes to its desktop UI for Windows 8, which includes moving away from Aero Glass — the UI first introduced with Vista. According to the company, this means visual changes that include 'flattening surfaces, removing reflections, and scaling back distracting gradients.' Despite all of these changes with the interface, the company doesn't appear to be worried about the issue of 'learnability.' Instead, Microsoft believes that with a little help it won't take long for users to adapt to the new operating system."
more walled garden... still not enough to make me leave my Linux freedom that I enjoy so much.
Tomorrow is another day...
The start button seems to be missing
Instead, Microsoft believes that with a little help it won't take long for users to adapt to the new operating system.
I finally agree with Microsoft on this one. They are correct, with only a little help it won't take long for users to adapt to a new OS such as MacOSX or Linux! Glad they finally are admitting it.
The only reason anyone stuck with Windows was the backwards compatibility and all the software available and that people have already invested in. Seems they are working pretty hard to remove as much of that as they can from Win8, which lowers the reasons to use it from 1 to 0 for a large number of people.
This isn't even news for nerds. Nerds have already been using the Developer and Consumer Previews and await the first beta, like me.
Flattening of window widgets is not news. It's not even a story.
And a link to the MSDN blog that discusses the entire history of Windows from 1.0 to 8 to justify the shenanigans in 8? Come the hell on. The Windows "defenders" here already do that in the comments. I can't even imagine the flood of grievances filed with the MWSU.
The story is Metro. The story is how maddening Metro is going to be to the vast majority of desktop users when you can't turn it off. The story is about how Microsoft thinks they've found the holy grail of a "one interface for all devices" when it's self-delusion, again. The story is how you and I and every other nerd on the planet is going to have to answer dumb questions about Metro just to be polite. Repeatedly. Until Windows 9.
--
BMO
The windows OS was largely similar from Windows 3.1 to Vista. Stop toying with it. I think it's find to have these as optional or even the default GUI if people really want it. But some of us have been using the windows GUI for ages and it's frankly not appreciated when things are moved around.
We know where all the buttons and features are supposed to be guys. There is no other place you can put them that will be better.
Every new version of windows is like some guy randomly coming into your kitchen and reorganizing everything only to leave a little message behind saying "I fixed your kitchen, you're welcome.".... Well great... I can't find the maynanese... my spice rack is completely out of order... and there are about a hundred things that i have to patiently remove from whatever stupid location they were put and put them back where I want them.
What? I can't move it there because you outright removed cabinets and installed totally different appliances? I had that experience in Windows 7 where they took away the ability to sort folders manually. Happily I found a registry hack that added the feature back into the system.
This is obnoxious Microsoft. And beyond that, we've lost compatibilty with most of the old dos apps in the 64 bit version of windows. There's no good reason for that since dos was already being emulated. You can't tell me that you can't emulate a 16 bit environment in a 64 bit environment when there are a dozen dos emulators on the market that will do just that. Of course, most of them are designed for games and so don't work with networked printers or any of the other fun stuff that we've been counting on for YEARS.
Seriously Microsoft. You're killing it. Your selling point forever has been standards and backward compatibility.
I can over look a lot of nonsense if you just give me an updated version of the same thing. I don't use windows to be wowed by the GUI graphics. I use windows because that's how I launch the programs and manage the files that I ACTUALLY care about. Changing everything around randomly is not helpful. Stop doing it. At the very least, at least provide some buried Classic mode somewhere in the system.
I'm tired of New Coke Windows. No one stick with you because you're innovative. We stick with you because you're consistent.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Based on recent trends in IE and Win UI design, Microsoft's announced plans, and their track record doing things just a little differently from Apple, I expect the default UI for Windows 9 to be just a blank bluish-grey screen with a lighter logo in the middle, and functions will be brought on screen and selected by gesturing in front of it in a dialect of American Sign Language. (Passwords will be entered by hiding one hand behind the other and finger-spelling.)
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Everyone was happily moving along in a world where more gradients, more gloss, or more 3D was the way of the future. Then Apple changed all that by going retro. They still used gradients and gloss, but in a more subtle way. Their icons were 2D, flat, iconic rather than 3D and realistic. This changed more than just GUIs: slideshows, packaging, advertisements, and trade show posters are changing too.
Microsoft is just following the trend. This will be consistent with the look and feel of Metro, and Visual Studio 2012.
To sell more Macs.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You underestimate the resilience of the masses to abuse. The sheep won't leave their pasture no matter how much they are beat and sheared...
Yes, but do bear in mind that "that pasture" they want to stay in can extend to *specific* versions of Windows. The great mass of Windows XP users didn't jump to Windows Vista when MS would have liked them to (admittedly that was because Vista was shite) and it was only some time after the launch of Windows 7 that they started to seriously move away, around 10 years after XP first came out.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
is complete.
If they keep Metro as The One UI to Rule Them All, as it seems they wish to, my strategy at work will be twofold:
1) Don't roll out Windows 8. 7 has support until 2020, there's plenty of time. We'll stay on 7, and we'll make sure to let the MS rep know why.
2) In cases where we need/want 8 get a UI mod to make 8 look like 7. Someone will have what we need, probably Stardock. They already have a start button restorer (http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/) and given that UI customization is their big market, I imagine they'll develop a suite of tools that'll make 8 act like 7 to whatever degree you desire.
So that's my plan. If people want to use Metro they'll be allowed, of course, but I'm not going to be doing any hand holding on it. Anyone who says "I don't like this can I have the old way back," will be accommodated.
I just think it is funny that MS doesn't seem to realize they are going to create another XP, meaning an OS that people don't want to move off of. XP wasn't all their fault, it was just the first real solid version of Windows most people had used (the first NT based OS for home users), Vista had teething problems initially due to very lazy-ass driver development from many manufacturers, and there was a big smear campaign against it (to the point I'll see people at work say that Vista sucks and they like 7... working on a Vista machine, they don't even know what it is, they just know it is bad, so they think they are on 7).
Well this time they'll do it again with 7, but it'll be all their fault. They have a good OS that people were happy with the upgrade to. If they release one that people don't like, they'll get stuck in the mentality of "7 is the only good OS, I won't upgrade."
That's the part I'm going to be annoyed about. Not 8, but in 2018 when 9 or 10 is the thing and it is a good OS, trying to convince people that yes, there is a new good one and you need to move to it before support expires.
"at least twice as much" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
Sure, you can buy an i7 PC a bit cheaper than the cheapest i7 equipped Mac, but the case will be louder, more flimsy, probably more gaudy. and won't have bluetooth and wifi integrated out of the box. Is it cheaper? Yes, depending on your perspective. Add in a good case, good keyboard and mouse, WiFi, equivalent interfaces (DisplayPort/Mini-DisplayPort/HDMI) then you've surpassed the price of the Mac.
Notebooks: Yes, you can get cheaper notebooks, but they will be flimsy pieces of crap than a Macbook, with a higher failure rate. My notebook (a 17" Dell Precision Mobile Workstation) with a full desktop chipset, Core 2 Quad Extreme, WUXGA+ (1920x1200) display with RGB-LED backlighting covering the full Adobe color gamut, internal RAID support (dual hard drives - newer ones support THREE hard drives!), and a THREE-button trackpointer AND touchpad, is actually more solidly built than my Macbook Pro (which I also have but never use; it's a Core Duo) but costs far more. I've dropped it from a 4' high ledge onto a tiled concrete floor with the screen open, and it never stopped running and the screen and everything else is fine. Very solid, but definitely cheap, either. I could buy a much cheaper PC notebook, but it will not have the fast desktop chipset, won't have an NVIDIA Quadro video card, won't have DisplayPort, and will have fewer USB ports than I have, and likely won't have ESATA and definitely won't have multiple hard drive bays. So, will it (a cheap notebook) save money? It depends on your needs.
I needed desktop/workstation performance on the go and that's what I have. You can't even get a desktop chipset in an Apple notebook. The great thing about PCs is there is a huge expanse of options ranging from ultra-cheap notebooks with integrated graphics and mobile chipsets, but flimsy cases. Decent notebooks with mobile chipsets but will last longer. Mobile chipsets in solid cases (equivalent to the Macbook Pro) but will have a low failure rate of only 2%-4%, and then you have the true mobile Desktop/Workstation offerings from Dell and Lenovo that are built like tanks, include desktop chipsets and workstation graphics cards and multiple hard drive support, and are priced accordingly. And, that selection works. The ironic thing is the more expensive notebooks (Latitude, Precision, Thinkpad, Toughbook) are cheaper for some people who are on the go a lot and work in both professional and industrial environments; the notebooks can take a real beating, and if you do break something, every individual part can be ordered, be it a screen hinge, a bezel, motherboard, hard drive sled/tray/bracket, or the entire chassis. The cheaper notebooks are disposable. Macbook Pro? Built like a tank but still has the retarded one-button mouse (yes yes I know about the "virtual" second button, but try using middle-button functionality in X in Linux!!), and when you do need a part, good luck ordering it, You have to deal with the "not"-genius bar who will only want to sell you on a new Macbook, or you need to go to feeBay or to a few other sites that offer the parts. Oh, and you can't get a Macbook with a desktop chipset.
Why is the desktop chipset a big deal? Faster throughput, better performance, and yes, there is a tradeoff of battery life, but IMHO it is worth it. Even with an outdated CPU and video card, my notebook still feels plenty fast, especially since I upgraded it with "hybrid" hard drives.
Conclusion: comparing apples to apples (no pun intended), a Macintosh notebook, iMac or Mac Mini is not really more expensive than the equivalent PC. The Mac Pro is a different story, though - but honestly if you go with something like a Supermicro workstation (which will have far faster throughput and more PCI-E x16 slots) it will be MUCH louder, unless you buy just the board and install your EATX board into a third-party chassis.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I don't think you can really say 'most people prefer GUIs'.
You can. And it would be true.
It depends what market segment you're talking about
"most people"
I certainly prefer a command prompt to a GUI when dealing with administrative tasks, it just makes it a lot simpler and more efficient to do that sprawling through menus and options.
Meh, beause reading through a 20 page man page to sort out what option you need on some rarely adjusted setting is better how?
The command line is great for scripting .. to make something easily repeatable, or to apply the same setting to a lot of systems.
To look something up, or make a change on one system, especially a change that isn't something you do daily... the gui is simpler, faster, and less prone to error.
Really, you want *both* - a GUI for being able to set standard options, config etc., and a command-line/config file you can use for setting all those odd little options that only 10 people in the world care about.
Even windows has this, but they call it the registry and it's one heck of a mess.
That all being said, my view of GUI vs Command Line is that a GUI is best for new users and graphical manipulation of objects. A command line is best once it's been learned and people are trying to get /work/ done . Just look at Autocad for instance: Seems every user who isn't a complete newbie uses the command line in it for a lot of stuff... though you'd be hard pressed to find someone who uses it exclusively.
Are the extremely functional UI's that have evolved for the last 30 years that broken?
Yes! They are! But the theme change in Windows 8 isn't meant to address that, it's meant to address the glaring style differences between the desktop and Metro—Metro is meant to address how broken the desktop UI is. Is it a success? Hard to say, but I'll bet it's a wash, and it's undermined by retaining the desktop.
I hope geeks will come to realize that just because they use and know WIMP doesn't mean that's the correct or even best interface approach, and it doesn't mean it's the best for every use case. We also need to realize that we're not the target audience of efforts like Metro, and whereas that audience will likely greatly benefit from losing the complexities of windows and menu bars, we geeks will thrive by adapting, and adopting power tools, as we always do.
I doubt Windows 8 is for me, and I think there's a lot wrong with the approach, but I think the upset over Metro is extremely misplaced and greatly misses the point. WIMP just doesn't serve most users well, and it's an ugly elitist demand that those users adapt to the complex UIs we happen to be familiar with so that we might not be faced with the choice of a new UI approach.
As a final note both Dave Cutler (the designer of the NT kernel) and of all people Apple showed them the way but MSFT didn't listen and now its too late. Cutler pushed for NT to be kept portable and Apple showed that if you want to change arches you need to have a crossover period where you can run both new and old on the new platform.
There have been a number of other cases where vendors moved the arch underneath their user base. HP-UX comes to mind, the PA->Itanic conversion happened pretty much seamlessly, except for the fact that PA apps ran pretty bad on itanium for about 5 years.
And that is where the problem lies, see they could write an x86 emulator for ARM, and detect the binaries, and make the whole thing seamless. The one huge problem is that when apple moved from 68k to PPC, and then again from PPC to intel, there was a pretty extreme performance advantage on the newer platform to hide the inefficiencies of the emulation layers.
With ARM vs x86 this simply isn't possible there is at a minimum a ~2x to ~20x performance delta between the fastest ARM available and a x86 (atom to intel EE). So even with fat binaries, its going to be a noticeable speed impact for anything that is performance intensive.
All this is sort of moot though, because MS has been pushing .net for the last decade. In theory anything written for .net can run on any platform, the same way java could. Its just a matter of getting the .net layers working. Of course MS doesn't have a good track record of getting it working on new platforms. Look at the delay between the beta release of windows x64 and .net for the platform.