Of course, everyone focuses on the UI because its what people see
Everyone focuses on the UI because that's what gets in the way. The improvements in Windows 8 are not earth-shaking, and not nearly large enough to overcome the awfulness of the UI.
Because the last thing I want is to buy cars like everything else - either prepackaged and designed for the lowest common denominator or having to spend days or weeks wasting my time trying to learn the arcana of a field in order to make a simple goddam purchase.
Too late. That's how you buy cars right now anyway, especially from a dealer. If you don't spend days or week learning the arcana of the field before setting foot in a dealership, you will be ripped off.
I pay them to make my life easier.
Then you're wasting your money in the dealerships. They do the exact opposite of making your life easier.
That would be a reasonable action if we had reason to believe that the information being given was complete and correct. However, history teaches us that we should not take that as a given.
This move by Google may be the best thing to happen to Ubuntu's OS. I know that, personally, Ubuntu's offering hasn't interested me at all -- but if Google really wants to go this direction, I'll have little choice but to go with Ubuntu.
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true? As long as Microsoft has tested and is certain of backwards compatibility, then it doesn't matter.
Yes, this is true. Microsoft's backward compatibility testing, while nice, is far from complete. Developers need to ensure for themselves that their code will work (or be content with publishing crap). Delaying the release to developers means that it is impossible, in good conscience, to ship an app with the promise that it works under 8.1 until well after 8.1 itself has shipped.
Microsoft believes that 8.1 is so much like 8.0 that it won't need testing. They've stated this multiple times before.
Considering that they do actually do extensive testing and dogfooding, its probably reasonably safe.
It depends on what kind of app you're writing, I suppose. In the app I work on, 8.1 broke a number important things compared to 8.0. Further, each preview release of 8.1 broke things that worked in the previous preview release of 8.1. Without testing, there can be no assurance at all that things will work without testing on the exact bits the end users will be running. In fact, if history is any guide, it's pretty much guaranteed that our apps won't work correctly on the RTM.
Windows 8.x has been a much larger pain to develop for than prior Windows versions because it's been much less stable from preview to preview. I've never experience as much pain with developing for Windows as I have with 8.
But I'm not going to build an Ajax-y interface AND a static HTML interface (for free) to coddle people with nothing more than a distrust of JavaScript.
It's not about coddling. It's about providing a website that is usable to the widest number of people. What about people with solid objections, not just a distrust, of Javascript?
But if you don't want to make a robust web site, that's fine. I'll just not use web sites you design, and we'll both stay happy.
The question is whether your JavaScript interpreter can be trusted to sandbox properly.
Sandboxing doesn't stop spying and tracking, it doesn't stop stupidity like disabling right-click menus, or any of a million other problems. Turning Javascript off does. If a site requires Javascript to function, the site is broken anyway.
Personally, so long as NoScript works as it always has, this is a nonissue for me. But I will not use a browser that just makes it impossible to disable javascript.
Then you can launch apps without leaving the desktop using the search pane. It slides in from the side and does not cover the entire screen. If you don't know the name of the app you want to launch, the full screen "All Apps" windows is much more useful than the "All Programs" folder tree in the start menu, since its sortable and you can easily recognize application icons.
Well, we simply disagree, I guess. The start screen is, for me, a very poor replacement for the start menu.
And the start menu cannot display a large number of items at all.
That's how people were using the old start menu too. That's how its supposed to be used.
That's how some people were using it, but for a lot of people, that's the clunkiest possible way to do it. In what world does it make sense to have to remember the name of an application you don't use regularly?
Want to launch an app? Press win+s and type the first few letters.
It's funny how many times people have said this, as if this addressed the problem. The last thing I want to do is memorize the name of every app I use, and take my hand off the mouse in order to type that name. It's just so clunky.
What's wrong with a compact menu to do this? In other words, the start menu?
What exactly do you want the start menu back for? The start button can be configured to send you to the All Apps window, which takes you to a sortable list of all your apps. Much more useful than an alphabetical list of folders with identical icons, IMO.
I don't share your opinion. The Metro start screen has two huge drawbacks: it's full-screen and jerks you away from the desktop (therefore, it's highly intrusive), and it doesn't display a large number of items well. There should be no reason for it to ever need multiple pages.
For me, the start menu is a superior method of accessing functionality I use a lot.
A note on the Metro apps: you aren't "supposed" to close them, and in the early DP versions there wasn't a way to close them at all.
This is correct -- and also a terrible decision. There are a lot of reasons to stop applications from executing when you're done with them that aren't related to resource usage. Conversely, there are a lot of reasons why you want an application to continue to run even if you haven't used it in a very long time.
I'm squarely in the "loathe it" camp. I honestly can't see how anyone could like it. But different people have different tastes, I guess.
Metro has a couple of problems. It works ok with a touch device, but not so much with a mouse.
I agree. Windows 8 sucks big time if you're not using it on a tablet or phone. It may be OK on a tablet or phone, but that's not relevant to me, so I don't care.
I actually found it's awesome with a keyboard.
It's funny. Almost 100% of the people I've seen that love Win 8 use it almost entirely with the keyboard. This tells me that the UI is actually broken from a usability point of view.
Not everyone wants to operate the OS exclusively with the keyboard (I sure don't, anyway), and even among those that do, there is no easy way to get there. You end up having to google for what key combo does what.
Metro does take a while to get used to but like the ribbon it grows on you after a while.
Why does everyone invoke the ribbon as if the ribbon is a good thing? The ribbon is one of the worst UI elements that Microsoft has introduced. I've been using it from the beginning and it still hasn't grown on me. It gets in my way and slows me down a lot.
The best UI is one that you stop noticing when you're using it. The ribbon is a million miles from that.
They provide their users with a service free of charge. How is that not free?
If you aren't currently in college, you have to buy a mobile phone that can receive texts in order to verify your account. I've read about cases where a user ends up locked out of an account entirely until he can verify a mobile phone number.
You can pick up a TracFone for $10 pretty much anywhere to do this. It comes with 10 minutes of time, which is plenty enough. But I don't think this makes Facebook not free, regardless.
That the service they provide is to sell your details to advertisers is beside the point... from the users' perspective, they do not pay for the service, therefore it is free.
It's not beside the point. From this users perspective, that is not free at all. The price just isn't money.
What's better about it? I've read a lot about lightning vs USB, but have yet to see what makes Lightning anything more than an expensive way to get a marginal improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, everyone focuses on the UI because its what people see
Everyone focuses on the UI because that's what gets in the way. The improvements in Windows 8 are not earth-shaking, and not nearly large enough to overcome the awfulness of the UI.
Because the last thing I want is to buy cars like everything else - either prepackaged and designed for the lowest common denominator or having to spend days or weeks wasting my time trying to learn the arcana of a field in order to make a simple goddam purchase.
Too late. That's how you buy cars right now anyway, especially from a dealer. If you don't spend days or week learning the arcana of the field before setting foot in a dealership, you will be ripped off.
I pay them to make my life easier.
Then you're wasting your money in the dealerships. They do the exact opposite of making your life easier.
Of course I would. The useful information I get out of a test drive is pretty minimal, actually.
That would be a reasonable action if we had reason to believe that the information being given was complete and correct. However, history teaches us that we should not take that as a given.
Actually it probably has no identifying details at all... it's almost certainly just a serial number, and that's it.
How is a serial number unique to you not an identifying detail?
This move by Google may be the best thing to happen to Ubuntu's OS. I know that, personally, Ubuntu's offering hasn't interested me at all -- but if Google really wants to go this direction, I'll have little choice but to go with Ubuntu.
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true? As long as Microsoft has tested and is certain of backwards compatibility, then it doesn't matter.
Yes, this is true. Microsoft's backward compatibility testing, while nice, is far from complete. Developers need to ensure for themselves that their code will work (or be content with publishing crap). Delaying the release to developers means that it is impossible, in good conscience, to ship an app with the promise that it works under 8.1 until well after 8.1 itself has shipped.
Who cares about Metro apps?
Microsoft believes that 8.1 is so much like 8.0 that it won't need testing. They've stated this multiple times before.
Considering that they do actually do extensive testing and dogfooding, its probably reasonably safe.
It depends on what kind of app you're writing, I suppose. In the app I work on, 8.1 broke a number important things compared to 8.0. Further, each preview release of 8.1 broke things that worked in the previous preview release of 8.1. Without testing, there can be no assurance at all that things will work without testing on the exact bits the end users will be running. In fact, if history is any guide, it's pretty much guaranteed that our apps won't work correctly on the RTM.
Windows 8.x has been a much larger pain to develop for than prior Windows versions because it's been much less stable from preview to preview. I've never experience as much pain with developing for Windows as I have with 8.
I see people carrying Surface RT's daily
I have never seen anyone carrying a surface RT. Not one. I do see plenty of iPads and Android tablets, though.
But I'm not going to build an Ajax-y interface AND a static HTML interface (for free) to coddle people with nothing more than a distrust of JavaScript.
It's not about coddling. It's about providing a website that is usable to the widest number of people. What about people with solid objections, not just a distrust, of Javascript?
But if you don't want to make a robust web site, that's fine. I'll just not use web sites you design, and we'll both stay happy.
The question is whether your JavaScript interpreter can be trusted to sandbox properly.
Sandboxing doesn't stop spying and tracking, it doesn't stop stupidity like disabling right-click menus, or any of a million other problems. Turning Javascript off does. If a site requires Javascript to function, the site is broken anyway.
Personally, so long as NoScript works as it always has, this is a nonissue for me. But I will not use a browser that just makes it impossible to disable javascript.
Then you can launch apps without leaving the desktop using the search pane. It slides in from the side and does not cover the entire screen. If you don't know the name of the app you want to launch, the full screen "All Apps" windows is much more useful than the "All Programs" folder tree in the start menu, since its sortable and you can easily recognize application icons.
Well, we simply disagree, I guess. The start screen is, for me, a very poor replacement for the start menu.
And the start menu cannot display a large number of items at all.
Yes, but it doesn't ever have to.
That's how people were using the old start menu too. That's how its supposed to be used.
That's how some people were using it, but for a lot of people, that's the clunkiest possible way to do it. In what world does it make sense to have to remember the name of an application you don't use regularly?
That is not a very good reason.
Want to launch an app? Press win+s and type the first few letters.
It's funny how many times people have said this, as if this addressed the problem. The last thing I want to do is memorize the name of every app I use, and take my hand off the mouse in order to type that name. It's just so clunky.
What's wrong with a compact menu to do this? In other words, the start menu?
What exactly do you want the start menu back for? The start button can be configured to send you to the All Apps window, which takes you to a sortable list of all your apps. Much more useful than an alphabetical list of folders with identical icons, IMO.
I don't share your opinion. The Metro start screen has two huge drawbacks: it's full-screen and jerks you away from the desktop (therefore, it's highly intrusive), and it doesn't display a large number of items well. There should be no reason for it to ever need multiple pages.
For me, the start menu is a superior method of accessing functionality I use a lot.
PDP-11
A note on the Metro apps: you aren't "supposed" to close them, and in the early DP versions there wasn't a way to close them at all.
This is correct -- and also a terrible decision. There are a lot of reasons to stop applications from executing when you're done with them that aren't related to resource usage. Conversely, there are a lot of reasons why you want an application to continue to run even if you haven't used it in a very long time.
I personally love the Ribbon.
I'm squarely in the "loathe it" camp. I honestly can't see how anyone could like it. But different people have different tastes, I guess.
Metro has a couple of problems. It works ok with a touch device, but not so much with a mouse.
I agree. Windows 8 sucks big time if you're not using it on a tablet or phone. It may be OK on a tablet or phone, but that's not relevant to me, so I don't care.
I actually found it's awesome with a keyboard.
It's funny. Almost 100% of the people I've seen that love Win 8 use it almost entirely with the keyboard. This tells me that the UI is actually broken from a usability point of view.
Not everyone wants to operate the OS exclusively with the keyboard (I sure don't, anyway), and even among those that do, there is no easy way to get there. You end up having to google for what key combo does what.
Metro does take a while to get used to but like the ribbon it grows on you after a while.
Why does everyone invoke the ribbon as if the ribbon is a good thing? The ribbon is one of the worst UI elements that Microsoft has introduced. I've been using it from the beginning and it still hasn't grown on me. It gets in my way and slows me down a lot.
The best UI is one that you stop noticing when you're using it. The ribbon is a million miles from that.
They provide their users with a service free of charge. How is that not free?
If you aren't currently in college, you have to buy a mobile phone that can receive texts in order to verify your account. I've read about cases where a user ends up locked out of an account entirely until he can verify a mobile phone number.
You can pick up a TracFone for $10 pretty much anywhere to do this. It comes with 10 minutes of time, which is plenty enough. But I don't think this makes Facebook not free, regardless.
That the service they provide is to sell your details to advertisers is beside the point... from the users' perspective, they do not pay for the service, therefore it is free.
It's not beside the point. From this users perspective, that is not free at all. The price just isn't money.
Apple has the right to do that. They are under no obligation to license their connector.
Nobody is saying otherwise. We're just saying Apple is acting like an asshole, not that they don't have the right to act like an asshole.
What's better about it? I've read a lot about lightning vs USB, but have yet to see what makes Lightning anything more than an expensive way to get a marginal improvement.