So, you're looking at the MS Surface ($500) and the iPad 3 ($500) and declaring that the Surface is $100 cheaper because it has 16 GB more storage?
Apple tiers their offerings based on storage. That's how consumers compare prices, so it makes sense if we're going to compare across product lines storage will be a differentiating feature.
The "equivalent" iPad is the iPad 2, with iWork, for $430.
How do you figure? Don't forget to add in $60 for USB/SD and HDMI adapters, bringing the grand total to.... $490, or roughly equivalent to the Surface price. And for what? The iPad 2 is over a year old, has worse specs in almost every regard (including storage, only 16GB is available now), and can't even use all the features of the latest version of iOS.
Anyone buying the iPad 2 today is extremely price and image conscious (wants an iPad and only an iPad, but does not want to spend what it takes to get a new iPad) and probably isn't in the market for a Surface, no matter the price.
My field is not astrophysics, but I do know telescope time is hard to come by, so you get what you get. However generally, and in my case, if a conference deadline is coming up, especially the biggest conference of the year, you work around the clock to make ge submission. If you miss it, you'll be in a less preferred venue or wait a whole year to publish, which is a big deal for academics.
I know you're half joking, but working for a number of years and returning to do a graduate degree was one option I considered. However, I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to do the phd first and go into a wall street job later than the reverse. My thought was, after 5-7 years on wall street Id be nearing 30 with perhaps a different set of priorities... Maybe a wife, maybe kids... I could never afford the time i can devote to my research now. And to be sure, a phd is not something you can do more efficiently by parallelizing the task (much like a baby didn't grow faster if more women are involved).
I respectfully disagree. Numbers, Pages, and Keynote constantly top the bestselling and top grossing apps on the app store. People want this functionality. Even I bought them, and was extremely disappointed with their breadth and depth. Office may never be optimized for a touch screen (an impossible task I would argue, given that the optimal input device is keyboard), but a full blown office suite is better than the neutered touch nonsense that is iWork for iPad and similar products.
Hell no. I was in this exact position when I graduated with my Physics degree. I had a job offered to me to work at Goldman Sachs with a starting salary of $150k+signing bonus. It took a lot of soul searching, but I ultimately turned it down to pursue a Ph.D., where I get $20k a year and work the 60-80 hours quoted above, nights, weekends, and holidays (guess where I was 4th of July and Christmas Eve). But even after all that, For $130k more I couldn't buy the time I spend doing what I love each and every day. Sure I could buy boats and cars and a house, but I don't think any of that would make me truly happy as I am pursuing my passion that will one day (I hope) make a difference (as opposed to managing rich people's and corporation's money and helping them to make even more money. Oh how fun and rewarding.)
This. I've been working on my Ph.D. for about 4 years now and spend at least 60 hours working per week in the Lab. When I'm not in the lab, I'm doing the same thing I would be doing in the lab but on personal projects. I only get paid about $20k a year (below minimum wage if you work out the per-hour wage), but I'm happier than I think I'd be if I had taken a job on wall street that was offered to me out of undergrad, for $150k a year. Plus I just got back from an all expenses paid vacation to a conference in Europe, so there are some perks too!
I think this concern is overblown. When the first iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs stated unequivocally that the iPhone OS *is* OS X. And yet no one was under the presumption that the iPhone would run OS X software. The reason for this, I believe, was that the UI and form factor was so different from a traditional Mac desktop, no one ever considered that their desktop applications would run on it, OS X or not.
Windows RT looks sufficiently different from traditional Windows, and it's only available on tablets. I think this is enough for people not to expect that it will run the traditional desktop apps they use with a keyboard and mouse, even though it bears the Windows name. The only thing I think will lead consumers ever to consider running desktop software is the availability of a desktop mode, but I think their expectations will be set by what they see first: the metro environment.
Actually, I think Microsoft will have the opposite problem: informing people that Windows 8 tablets, desktops, and laptops do in fact run desktop grade software.
Interesting you say this, because I observed my girlfriend using my Latitude XT (a 2008 era tablet PC with a touch screen) with Windows 8 this way. She was using it in laptop mode, with the keyboard and track pad right in front of her. But instead of scrolling a website using the mouse or keyboard, she was panning with the touch screen. I asked her why she was doing that and she said it just seemed easier. Personally, I don't agree, but maybe she's on to something.
When they launched the surface, Microsoft said it would be priced competitively with current tablets. That's your expectation anchor. They stuck to that by undercutting the equivalent iPad by $100. A $200 Surface undercutting the equivalent iPad by $400 is surely quite competitive, but did you seriously think that price was going to stick? Just compare the Surface (10 inch, 32GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Magnesium chassis) to a Nexus 7 (7 inch, 8GB SSD, 1GB RAM, Plastic chassis), and pricing them the same seems way off.
Typing on the screen still obscures half the display with your hand and the keyboard. Even with no travel, the touch keyboard is a net gain for productivity. Either way, there is a mechanical cover as well that is a little thicker but has actual mechanical keys. Probably still not as good as a normal keyboard, but sufficient enough for what it is.
They undercut the iPad price by $100. Surface starts at 32GB for $499 (and includes Office). The equivalent iPad costs $599 (Or $689 if you want to add in an office suite and a couple of USB/SD/HDMI port adapters for a level comparison). Besides, even if the Surface isn't the cheapest windows tablet, other manufacturers like Dell can step right in and make a $399 tablet.
It's strange, Slashdot blasts Microsoft for entering the hardware space saying they're going to screw over their partners, and then when they don't completely screw over their partners by drastically undercutting the entire market, they get blasted on Slashdot again.
And yet in 1994 people skilled in the art (peer researchers and engineers) admitted a paper, which this patent is based on, titled "Personal dynamic maps based on distributed geographic information servers" into the IEEE Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference.
So if people have been doing exactly this since the 70s, why was this considered new cutting edge research in 1994 by people skilled in the art?
Sounds blatantly obvious to someone skilled in the art...
In 1996? Did systems like this exist back then? Bear in mind they're not just talking about communicating with two or more servers to query information, but also integrating it with technologies like cellular, GPS, portable/handheld computers, and the world wide web, which were all very new in 1996. The technology they're describing didn't become widespread until a decade later. It might be obvious to someone skilled in the art today, but I'm not so sure it was 16 years ago.
Part of what bugs me with Windows 8's UI is it has features that seem questionable in their very premise. While I was just typing that last paragraph I started right clicking around the edge of my screen to see what else was hidden and I noticed the pointer changing to a hand at the top edge.
This feature works better on a tablet; it's for arranging metro apps side by side. The good thing is if you discover it accidentally, it doesn't really do much and at worst it's jut a little strange. But on a touch screen arranging windows this way works well. On desktop, I use keyboard shortcuts to do the same more efficiently. This feature could probably have only been enabled on detection of touch screen.
Isn't it a little much the right-click menu in the lower left corner includes "Desktop" at the bottom. They felt the need to add a menu command to take you someplace you already are. e_e Plus, Windows Explorer is on the menu, which is activated by clicking in an area right next to a Windows Explorer taskbar tile. Features for features' sake.
This menu is accessible from anywhere on the computer, including the start screen and other metro apps. It's quite handy IMO, and one of the best features of Win8 for power users. There are even utilities available to customize it.
There's not a big reason all three couldn't exist, though.
But they do! Again we're taken back to the point of this article, that you can replace the start menu. In fact with classic shell you can replace it with the classic start menu or the windows vista/7 style start menu. People seem to be clamoring for a Microsoft sanctioned solution, even though odds are Microsoft's solution (if any) would implement the Windows 7 start menu, leaving all you Classic Start menu people still angry. This way, you get to choose what start menu you want, whether it's classic, 7, or something else entirely. After Windows 8 is released, I'm sure we'll see even more start menu options and further methods to removed Metro influences for people like you.
Doesn't this feel slightly backwards, though? The search should be for items you only have a vague idea of the name of and don't want to spend a bunch of time looking for all similarly named things.
Yeah, after I read what I wrote, I realized it is silly. But that's the way it works best, as the search isn't smart enough to find the query "That program I installed last month and used a couple times to encode some media." Searching for vague idea of a name doesn't work well for applications, since obscure applications you don't use often tend to have the most uncanny names.
As for following the breadcrumbs, yes that works. In the case of Firefox, it's installed in the folder Mozilla Firefox. The the procedure in the start menu is to scan an alphabetical list first for Firefox.... okay not there, where could it be? The best search strategy at that point is to read every single item in the list until you arrive at Mozilla Firefox, open it, then open Firefox. With the all apps menu, you don't need to know what it's called, only what the icon looks like. I see it right away in my all apps list. If you don't know the icon, in my opinion it's easier to scan a 2D grid at once rather than a 1D list serially. So I find all apps easier to use when I don't know exactly what I'm searching for compared to search.... backwards I know. Maybe one day Desktop computers will be as smart as Google.
There isn't a real place for readme's and other files that normally lived in Program folders to be kept and accessible simultaneously in this new interface setup.
For now this place is the all apps list. Maybe it's not the best solution, but for now I don't feel it's any worse than what was presented with the start menu. I agree your proposed solution is better.
It's more consistent, but with no visual cues you can completely miss functionality.
Nothing like making your OS features invisible to make people develop a bad opinion of it, eh?
True, but we have been using invisible UI elements for a long time and people have been getting along fine. As long as they are educated about what to use, people will get along. For instance, right click context menus are a point of contention for beginners. They don't know when to right click on something, as there are no visual cues, and the menu that appears is always different.... sometimes it's hard to understand for a new user what exactly will happen when you right click on something. Also, operations like double click to open and click drag have no visual cues. You don't know how many times I've had to explain double clicking vs. single clicking to beginner users. Are these intuitive interface designs? No, clearly not for everyone. Does that make them bad? No, not in my opinion. I learned them once and now I don't need a visual cue cluttering things to tell me where to right click. Same goes for the charms menu. Now that I know it's there, I don't need some sort of visual hint cluttering my display.
The Developer's Preview and Release Preview have both been available to the public should they wish to try them, and Microsoft has even encouraged them to in the latter. Yes, stuff has been changed, but the "joys" of using the new Metro desktop have always been part of it.
Right, but I think you'll agree with me that the majority of Microsoft's customers haven't downloaded and installed it, and given their opinion. Still only the opinion of the vocal minority is before us, and we have yet to see what general consumers will say.
That is true, but much as you lambaste my statements as my feeling much of your reply is subjective comments as well. "Common users" don't operate their desktop or even laptop PCs with touch screens, which the Metro interface...
I'm sorry that my tone is coming across as lambasting; I'm not trying to come across as overly harsh and I apologize if I am. The metro interface has many large elements, which true is ideal for touch, but there is a full suite of keyboard, mouse, and touch pad shortcuts as well. In fact, where drivers allow, many of the touch screen gestures map to the touch pad in windows 8. In my experience using Windows 8 on a touch enabled laptop and a desktop, I find the start screen and metro interface easily usable with all 4 input options.
As for if the mouse is precise enough, yes it is for some people. But the large icons you mention aren't always available. In the start menu, for instance, the icons are very small, and you have to scroll through a list of small icons that all look the same in Windows 7. In windows XP, you need fine motor skills to navigate the flyout menu. Especially if the item you're looking for is multiple layers deep, you run the risk of closing everything or engaging the wrong item if your mouse wonders out of a tiny area.
Are controls really subjectively "more consistent and accessible" when they now literally hide from the user in five different places, compared to before when they were in a single trigger-always-visible branching menu?
Again, there is a single access point for all functionality still: the charms menu.
Is a full featured app really necessary to find out the weather, or stocks? A dedicated news reader app I can understand, but the other two sound like things that should be taken care of soundly with a full-featured website. A solution in search of a problem here.
Those are just examples. Any metro app you have (contacts, calendar, messaging, facebook, twitter, linkedin, music, videos, pictures, games...... if they're built with the Metro API you can easily add live tile functionality.
Hiding something has the implication that it's not meant to be found. If I hide my jewels in a secret drawer, I don't want anyone to find them. The jewels are hidden and not visible. If I tell someone where the secret drawer is and how to access it, the jewels are still not visible, but they are no longer hidden.
The analogue is that Microsoft tells you exactly where to find the start menu and how to access it. Windows 8 instructs you to "Move your mouse into any corner" the first time you log in.
It became cluttered, but the good side to having a monolithic control menu is if you're trying to find something you always know where to start (pun not intended) looking.
That's the charms menu now, not the start screen. Charms menu gives you search, share, devices, start, settings. Literally anything you want to do to manage your computer can be accessed there, sort of like the start menu, but they made the layout and controls more consistent and accessible no matter where you are in the OS.
Like I said, needs to be more intuitive if you're not gonna include a manual. Also: most end users don't even know the basic universal keyboard shortcuts (cut, copy, paste, select all, etc), so adding a huge number of keyboard shortcuts in place of clickable menus just doesn't cut it.
The shortcuts I mention are for power users and are in addition to the standard ways to find things. You obviously are looking for a faster way to work and there is one, but you also found the control panel on your own. A simple google search reveals the short cuts I mentioned, and anyone interested to know is just a search away.
Yes, and it seems to be the majority opinion.
I'm interested how you can gauge the majority opinion when Windows 8 hasn't even been released to the general public. Tech blogs like slashdot have certainly taken advantage of easily riled geeks who are set in their ways by publishing inflammatory articles, sure, but this hardly represents the majority opinion. Metro arguably was made with common users in mind, who in my experience so far appreciate the simplicity of the metro interface. But any assertion as to the opinion of the majority remains to be seen.
So did everyone else. Years ago when they were called widgets or gadgets....How are content-driven live tiles any different that the old widgets systems?
I've used widgets too, and they never quite lived up to their potential. For example, widgets were often stand alone applications, and did not launch a larger, more detailed app. For instance, my weather widget did not open up to a full fledged app, but simply linked to weather.com for more info. My stocks app and my news app likewise linked to websites. Further, there are classes of live tiles like games that really never had widget equivalents. For instance, if I play a game on Windows 8 and exit, I can see the state of the game on my start screen. I don't recall widgets having the ability to monitor the state of my games.
As for other advantages of live tiles: they conform to a strict API, which assures security and power management. Live tiles are only for metro apps, which are sandboxed and certified. They also only use CPU when you're viewing them and otherwise use low bandwidth and cpu for pushing notifications if enabled, with a centralized location for managing these notifications. This is in contrast to some widgets, which constantly suck CPU, bandwidth, and can be a security nightmare.
Can you work in an app and view a live tile at the same time -- without any extra mouse movements or keyboard shortcuts?
No, but I never used Widgets in that way personally. I always used desktop peek to see widgets on my desktop, which hides my work. Although, I can dock a metro app on the side, which I do often with stocks. Alternatively, notifications can alert you of changes in a metro app while you're working,
1. You should specify a screen size when making statements like this.
My laptop screen is 1600x900. However, the start menu has roughly the same capacity no matter the screen size, since it doesn't scale up very well. This article has a comparison of visible items vs. resolution for start menu and start screen.
I'm speaking as someone who has been using Win 8 & Metro quite a lot over the last few months, not someone who's regurgitating things I've read on blogs. The Metro interface may be good on tablets & phones, but it's awful on the desktop.
And yet you offer no specifics? After using it myself I can offer some things that the start screen I don't like (removing a single item is not efficient, you can't see the screen behind it), but many more where it's better than the start menu. The start screen offers more information than the start menu. It allows more items that can be displayed at once. It scales with screen resolution. It's easier to sort the icons into groups and arrange them within the group. You can pin folders. How about some specifics from your end?
Start Screen + All Apps + Search + Charms = start menu. That's the problem with the start menu; it has become a swiss army knife of functionality over time with so much functionality in such small an area.
I talked to someone on a forum elsewhere and he was complaining about the multi-step process needed to shut down the machine in Windows 8 verses earlier versions. He didn't know it can be done in three steps using the Charms menu. Is it intuitive at all to add a shutdown command to what is supposed to be a settings sidebar?
Obviously it does not need to be intuitive, as the unintuitive location of the shutdown command in the start menu works; you just need to be taught where it is. The settings charm is an integral part of Windows 8. You will stumble across it eventually.... if not you probably don't use the computer enough. Anyway, if you have a problem with the location, ctrl+alt+del will bring up the shut down command as it always has. Or you can pin a shortcut to the start screen or task bar. Or you can just use the hardware button.
if I want to open the Control Panels (the full list, not the limited Metro-fied collection) I have to open an Explorer window and use a Ribbon command.
That's one way.... or there's a shortcut in the desktop settings charm. Or the easiest way, the WinX menu (win key + x or right click lower left corner).
It doesn't really do anything to improve the experience for the user as far as actually using their computer.
That's your opinion. The start screen allows for large content-drive live tiles, something that would never fit in the small start menu. I appreciate the at-a-glace information the start screen provides in the various tiles. There's also room for more tiles displayed at once. I have space for about 40 tiles on my screen. On the start menu you get about 10 large icons, and then everything else is buried at least 2 clicks away in a list of folders.
Slashdot Mirror
and no right click.
Tap and hold brings up context menus.
Then again, they don't have to spend money on a keyboard and simplified mechanics (no hinge to break) which likely saves on support costs.
So, you're looking at the MS Surface ($500) and the iPad 3 ($500) and declaring that the Surface is $100 cheaper because it has 16 GB more storage?
Apple tiers their offerings based on storage. That's how consumers compare prices, so it makes sense if we're going to compare across product lines storage will be a differentiating feature.
The "equivalent" iPad is the iPad 2, with iWork, for $430.
How do you figure? Don't forget to add in $60 for USB/SD and HDMI adapters, bringing the grand total to.... $490, or roughly equivalent to the Surface price. And for what? The iPad 2 is over a year old, has worse specs in almost every regard (including storage, only 16GB is available now), and can't even use all the features of the latest version of iOS.
Anyone buying the iPad 2 today is extremely price and image conscious (wants an iPad and only an iPad, but does not want to spend what it takes to get a new iPad) and probably isn't in the market for a Surface, no matter the price.
My field is not astrophysics, but I do know telescope time is hard to come by, so you get what you get. However generally, and in my case, if a conference deadline is coming up, especially the biggest conference of the year, you work around the clock to make ge submission. If you miss it, you'll be in a less preferred venue or wait a whole year to publish, which is a big deal for academics.
I know you're half joking, but working for a number of years and returning to do a graduate degree was one option I considered. However, I came to the conclusion that it would be easier to do the phd first and go into a wall street job later than the reverse. My thought was, after 5-7 years on wall street Id be nearing 30 with perhaps a different set of priorities... Maybe a wife, maybe kids... I could never afford the time i can devote to my research now. And to be sure, a phd is not something you can do more efficiently by parallelizing the task (much like a baby didn't grow faster if more women are involved).
I respectfully disagree. Numbers, Pages, and Keynote constantly top the bestselling and top grossing apps on the app store. People want this functionality. Even I bought them, and was extremely disappointed with their breadth and depth. Office may never be optimized for a touch screen (an impossible task I would argue, given that the optimal input device is keyboard), but a full blown office suite is better than the neutered touch nonsense that is iWork for iPad and similar products.
Hell no. I was in this exact position when I graduated with my Physics degree. I had a job offered to me to work at Goldman Sachs with a starting salary of $150k+signing bonus. It took a lot of soul searching, but I ultimately turned it down to pursue a Ph.D., where I get $20k a year and work the 60-80 hours quoted above, nights, weekends, and holidays (guess where I was 4th of July and Christmas Eve). But even after all that, For $130k more I couldn't buy the time I spend doing what I love each and every day. Sure I could buy boats and cars and a house, but I don't think any of that would make me truly happy as I am pursuing my passion that will one day (I hope) make a difference (as opposed to managing rich people's and corporation's money and helping them to make even more money. Oh how fun and rewarding.)
This. I've been working on my Ph.D. for about 4 years now and spend at least 60 hours working per week in the Lab. When I'm not in the lab, I'm doing the same thing I would be doing in the lab but on personal projects. I only get paid about $20k a year (below minimum wage if you work out the per-hour wage), but I'm happier than I think I'd be if I had taken a job on wall street that was offered to me out of undergrad, for $150k a year. Plus I just got back from an all expenses paid vacation to a conference in Europe, so there are some perks too!
I think this concern is overblown. When the first iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs stated unequivocally that the iPhone OS *is* OS X. And yet no one was under the presumption that the iPhone would run OS X software. The reason for this, I believe, was that the UI and form factor was so different from a traditional Mac desktop, no one ever considered that their desktop applications would run on it, OS X or not.
Windows RT looks sufficiently different from traditional Windows, and it's only available on tablets. I think this is enough for people not to expect that it will run the traditional desktop apps they use with a keyboard and mouse, even though it bears the Windows name. The only thing I think will lead consumers ever to consider running desktop software is the availability of a desktop mode, but I think their expectations will be set by what they see first: the metro environment.
Actually, I think Microsoft will have the opposite problem: informing people that Windows 8 tablets, desktops, and laptops do in fact run desktop grade software.
What makes you think $399 is below their cost? Dell can sell a laptop for $399. I don't see why they couldn't sell a tablet for the same.
Interesting you say this, because I observed my girlfriend using my Latitude XT (a 2008 era tablet PC with a touch screen) with Windows 8 this way. She was using it in laptop mode, with the keyboard and track pad right in front of her. But instead of scrolling a website using the mouse or keyboard, she was panning with the touch screen. I asked her why she was doing that and she said it just seemed easier. Personally, I don't agree, but maybe she's on to something.
Perhaps you're not aware of this: http://www.microsoft.com/Surface/en-US/accessories/type-cover
When they launched the surface, Microsoft said it would be priced competitively with current tablets. That's your expectation anchor. They stuck to that by undercutting the equivalent iPad by $100. A $200 Surface undercutting the equivalent iPad by $400 is surely quite competitive, but did you seriously think that price was going to stick? Just compare the Surface (10 inch, 32GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Magnesium chassis) to a Nexus 7 (7 inch, 8GB SSD, 1GB RAM, Plastic chassis), and pricing them the same seems way off.
Why would you ever expect the surface to be $200?
They are releasing Android and iOS apps, and it already works in Windows Phone.
Typing on the screen still obscures half the display with your hand and the keyboard. Even with no travel, the touch keyboard is a net gain for productivity. Either way, there is a mechanical cover as well that is a little thicker but has actual mechanical keys. Probably still not as good as a normal keyboard, but sufficient enough for what it is.
They undercut the iPad price by $100. Surface starts at 32GB for $499 (and includes Office). The equivalent iPad costs $599 (Or $689 if you want to add in an office suite and a couple of USB/SD/HDMI port adapters for a level comparison). Besides, even if the Surface isn't the cheapest windows tablet, other manufacturers like Dell can step right in and make a $399 tablet.
It's strange, Slashdot blasts Microsoft for entering the hardware space saying they're going to screw over their partners, and then when they don't completely screw over their partners by drastically undercutting the entire market, they get blasted on Slashdot again.
And yet in 1994 people skilled in the art (peer researchers and engineers) admitted a paper, which this patent is based on, titled "Personal dynamic maps based on distributed geographic information servers" into the IEEE Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference.
So if people have been doing exactly this since the 70s, why was this considered new cutting edge research in 1994 by people skilled in the art?
Sounds blatantly obvious to someone skilled in the art...
In 1996? Did systems like this exist back then? Bear in mind they're not just talking about communicating with two or more servers to query information, but also integrating it with technologies like cellular, GPS, portable/handheld computers, and the world wide web, which were all very new in 1996. The technology they're describing didn't become widespread until a decade later. It might be obvious to someone skilled in the art today, but I'm not so sure it was 16 years ago.
Part of what bugs me with Windows 8's UI is it has features that seem questionable in their very premise. While I was just typing that last paragraph I started right clicking around the edge of my screen to see what else was hidden and I noticed the pointer changing to a hand at the top edge.
This feature works better on a tablet; it's for arranging metro apps side by side. The good thing is if you discover it accidentally, it doesn't really do much and at worst it's jut a little strange. But on a touch screen arranging windows this way works well. On desktop, I use keyboard shortcuts to do the same more efficiently. This feature could probably have only been enabled on detection of touch screen.
Isn't it a little much the right-click menu in the lower left corner includes "Desktop" at the bottom. They felt the need to add a menu command to take you someplace you already are. e_e Plus, Windows Explorer is on the menu, which is activated by clicking in an area right next to a Windows Explorer taskbar tile. Features for features' sake.
This menu is accessible from anywhere on the computer, including the start screen and other metro apps. It's quite handy IMO, and one of the best features of Win8 for power users. There are even utilities available to customize it.
There's not a big reason all three couldn't exist, though.
But they do! Again we're taken back to the point of this article, that you can replace the start menu. In fact with classic shell you can replace it with the classic start menu or the windows vista/7 style start menu. People seem to be clamoring for a Microsoft sanctioned solution, even though odds are Microsoft's solution (if any) would implement the Windows 7 start menu, leaving all you Classic Start menu people still angry. This way, you get to choose what start menu you want, whether it's classic, 7, or something else entirely. After Windows 8 is released, I'm sure we'll see even more start menu options and further methods to removed Metro influences for people like you.
Doesn't this feel slightly backwards, though? The search should be for items you only have a vague idea of the name of and don't want to spend a bunch of time looking for all similarly named things.
Yeah, after I read what I wrote, I realized it is silly. But that's the way it works best, as the search isn't smart enough to find the query "That program I installed last month and used a couple times to encode some media." Searching for vague idea of a name doesn't work well for applications, since obscure applications you don't use often tend to have the most uncanny names.
As for following the breadcrumbs, yes that works. In the case of Firefox, it's installed in the folder Mozilla Firefox. The the procedure in the start menu is to scan an alphabetical list first for Firefox.... okay not there, where could it be? The best search strategy at that point is to read every single item in the list until you arrive at Mozilla Firefox, open it, then open Firefox. With the all apps menu, you don't need to know what it's called, only what the icon looks like. I see it right away in my all apps list. If you don't know the icon, in my opinion it's easier to scan a 2D grid at once rather than a 1D list serially. So I find all apps easier to use when I don't know exactly what I'm searching for compared to search.... backwards I know. Maybe one day Desktop computers will be as smart as Google.
There isn't a real place for readme's and other files that normally lived in Program folders to be kept and accessible simultaneously in this new interface setup.
For now this place is the all apps list. Maybe it's not the best solution, but for now I don't feel it's any worse than what was presented with the start menu. I agree your proposed solution is better.
It's more consistent, but with no visual cues you can completely miss functionality. Nothing like making your OS features invisible to make people develop a bad opinion of it, eh?
True, but we have been using invisible UI elements for a long time and people have been getting along fine. As long as they are educated about what to use, people will get along. For instance, right click context menus are a point of contention for beginners. They don't know when to right click on something, as there are no visual cues, and the menu that appears is always different.... sometimes it's hard to understand for a new user what exactly will happen when you right click on something. Also, operations like double click to open and click drag have no visual cues. You don't know how many times I've had to explain double clicking vs. single clicking to beginner users. Are these intuitive interface designs? No, clearly not for everyone. Does that make them bad? No, not in my opinion. I learned them once and now I don't need a visual cue cluttering things to tell me where to right click. Same goes for the charms menu. Now that I know it's there, I don't need some sort of visual hint cluttering my display.
The Developer's Preview and Release Preview have both been available to the public should they wish to try them, and Microsoft has even encouraged them to in the latter. Yes, stuff has been changed, but the "joys" of using the new Metro desktop have always been part of it.
Right, but I think you'll agree with me that the majority of Microsoft's customers haven't downloaded and installed it, and given their opinion. Still only the opinion of the vocal minority is before us, and we have yet to see what general consumers will say. That is true, but much as you lambaste my statements as my feeling much of your reply is subjective comments as well. "Common users" don't operate their desktop or even laptop PCs with touch screens, which the Metro interface...
I'm sorry that my tone is coming across as lambasting; I'm not trying to come across as overly harsh and I apologize if I am. The metro interface has many large elements, which true is ideal for touch, but there is a full suite of keyboard, mouse, and touch pad shortcuts as well. In fact, where drivers allow, many of the touch screen gestures map to the touch pad in windows 8. In my experience using Windows 8 on a touch enabled laptop and a desktop, I find the start screen and metro interface easily usable with all 4 input options.
As for if the mouse is precise enough, yes it is for some people. But the large icons you mention aren't always available. In the start menu, for instance, the icons are very small, and you have to scroll through a list of small icons that all look the same in Windows 7. In windows XP, you need fine motor skills to navigate the flyout menu. Especially if the item you're looking for is multiple layers deep, you run the risk of closing everything or engaging the wrong item if your mouse wonders out of a tiny area.
Are controls really subjectively "more consistent and accessible" when they now literally hide from the user in five different places, compared to before when they were in a single trigger-always-visible branching menu?
Again, there is a single access point for all functionality still: the charms menu.
Is a full featured app really necessary to find out the weather, or stocks? A dedicated news reader app I can understand, but the other two sound like things that should be taken care of soundly with a full-featured website. A solution in search of a problem here.
Those are just examples. Any metro app you have (contacts, calendar, messaging, facebook, twitter, linkedin, music, videos, pictures, games...... if they're built with the Metro API you can easily add live tile functionality.
There's no reason Widgets couldn't
Hiding something has the implication that it's not meant to be found. If I hide my jewels in a secret drawer, I don't want anyone to find them. The jewels are hidden and not visible. If I tell someone where the secret drawer is and how to access it, the jewels are still not visible, but they are no longer hidden.
The analogue is that Microsoft tells you exactly where to find the start menu and how to access it. Windows 8 instructs you to "Move your mouse into any corner" the first time you log in.
It became cluttered, but the good side to having a monolithic control menu is if you're trying to find something you always know where to start (pun not intended) looking.
That's the charms menu now, not the start screen. Charms menu gives you search, share, devices, start, settings. Literally anything you want to do to manage your computer can be accessed there, sort of like the start menu, but they made the layout and controls more consistent and accessible no matter where you are in the OS.
Like I said, needs to be more intuitive if you're not gonna include a manual. Also: most end users don't even know the basic universal keyboard shortcuts (cut, copy, paste, select all, etc), so adding a huge number of keyboard shortcuts in place of clickable menus just doesn't cut it.
The shortcuts I mention are for power users and are in addition to the standard ways to find things. You obviously are looking for a faster way to work and there is one, but you also found the control panel on your own. A simple google search reveals the short cuts I mentioned, and anyone interested to know is just a search away.
Yes, and it seems to be the majority opinion.
I'm interested how you can gauge the majority opinion when Windows 8 hasn't even been released to the general public. Tech blogs like slashdot have certainly taken advantage of easily riled geeks who are set in their ways by publishing inflammatory articles, sure, but this hardly represents the majority opinion. Metro arguably was made with common users in mind, who in my experience so far appreciate the simplicity of the metro interface. But any assertion as to the opinion of the majority remains to be seen.
So did everyone else. Years ago when they were called widgets or gadgets....How are content-driven live tiles any different that the old widgets systems?
I've used widgets too, and they never quite lived up to their potential. For example, widgets were often stand alone applications, and did not launch a larger, more detailed app. For instance, my weather widget did not open up to a full fledged app, but simply linked to weather.com for more info. My stocks app and my news app likewise linked to websites. Further, there are classes of live tiles like games that really never had widget equivalents. For instance, if I play a game on Windows 8 and exit, I can see the state of the game on my start screen. I don't recall widgets having the ability to monitor the state of my games.
As for other advantages of live tiles: they conform to a strict API, which assures security and power management. Live tiles are only for metro apps, which are sandboxed and certified. They also only use CPU when you're viewing them and otherwise use low bandwidth and cpu for pushing notifications if enabled, with a centralized location for managing these notifications. This is in contrast to some widgets, which constantly suck CPU, bandwidth, and can be a security nightmare.
Can you work in an app and view a live tile at the same time -- without any extra mouse movements or keyboard shortcuts?
No, but I never used Widgets in that way personally. I always used desktop peek to see widgets on my desktop, which hides my work. Although, I can dock a metro app on the side, which I do often with stocks. Alternatively, notifications can alert you of changes in a metro app while you're working,
1. You should specify a screen size when making statements like this.
My laptop screen is 1600x900. However, the start menu has roughly the same capacity no matter the screen size, since it doesn't scale up very well. This article has a comparison of visible items vs. resolution for start menu and start screen.
2. How many programs do you th
I'm speaking as someone who has been using Win 8 & Metro quite a lot over the last few months, not someone who's regurgitating things I've read on blogs. The Metro interface may be good on tablets & phones, but it's awful on the desktop.
And yet you offer no specifics? After using it myself I can offer some things that the start screen I don't like (removing a single item is not efficient, you can't see the screen behind it), but many more where it's better than the start menu. The start screen offers more information than the start menu. It allows more items that can be displayed at once. It scales with screen resolution. It's easier to sort the icons into groups and arrange them within the group. You can pin folders. How about some specifics from your end?
The Start Screen + Charms menu != Start Menu.
Start Screen + All Apps + Search + Charms = start menu. That's the problem with the start menu; it has become a swiss army knife of functionality over time with so much functionality in such small an area.
I talked to someone on a forum elsewhere and he was complaining about the multi-step process needed to shut down the machine in Windows 8 verses earlier versions. He didn't know it can be done in three steps using the Charms menu. Is it intuitive at all to add a shutdown command to what is supposed to be a settings sidebar?
Obviously it does not need to be intuitive, as the unintuitive location of the shutdown command in the start menu works; you just need to be taught where it is. The settings charm is an integral part of Windows 8. You will stumble across it eventually.... if not you probably don't use the computer enough. Anyway, if you have a problem with the location, ctrl+alt+del will bring up the shut down command as it always has. Or you can pin a shortcut to the start screen or task bar. Or you can just use the hardware button.
if I want to open the Control Panels (the full list, not the limited Metro-fied collection) I have to open an Explorer window and use a Ribbon command.
That's one way.... or there's a shortcut in the desktop settings charm. Or the easiest way, the WinX menu (win key + x or right click lower left corner).
It doesn't really do anything to improve the experience for the user as far as actually using their computer.
That's your opinion. The start screen allows for large content-drive live tiles, something that would never fit in the small start menu. I appreciate the at-a-glace information the start screen provides in the various tiles. There's also room for more tiles displayed at once. I have space for about 40 tiles on my screen. On the start menu you get about 10 large icons, and then everything else is buried at least 2 clicks away in a list of folders.