Barring comparability and performance regressions, at $20 why not upgrade? From my usage, Mountain Lion doesn't offer any real drastic changes, just some polish and some optional features, some of which are welcome, some which I'll probably never use. I haven't run into any showstopper bugs, and it's generally just a run-of-the mill upgrade with some nice features. Apple always claims they've added hundreds of new features, but their threshold for a "feature" seems to be lower and lower with each release, with even the lowliest check box being counted as a "feature" right next to full applications like iMessage or Reminders or Gatekeeper. When you separate the features by magnitude, there are only really a handful that stand out. I know every release of OSX is a "point" release, but Mountain Lion really captures the meaning behind the phrase.
You're making the mistake of assuming that mathematics is the only gateway to critical thinking and logic. True, mathematics is one of the best gateways to higher-level thinking, but it is so abstract that many people are just plain bad at it. There are other ways to exercise the brain, and people practice them every day. There are many hard, challenging, important jobs out there where much mathematical theory is not entirely necessary. Yes perhaps they use math, but the math the use is distilled and put in a very clear context relevant to a task at hand, not pure theory which you learn in the classroom.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim those who do not know math are incapable of understanding the world. The level of mathematics taught in high school is the smallest shrivel of the scope of the mathematics field. You don't really start getting into the core of the subject until the graduate level. So are you saying anyone without a graduate level of education in mathematic is unable to understand the world? Or perhaps you think only a highschool level of educate is necessary to understand the world?
And how exactly do you define the world? The world is vast, and we can probably define and describe less than 1% of all we know with mathematical formulas. What about poets, artists, authors... do they not understand the world? I can't tell you the last time I read an equation that elicited more emotion than Whitman or Frost. So maybe it's apt to say those who do not understand love or nature or poetry or biology do not understand the world.
There are other ways to teach problem solving, logic, and critical thinking that don't include mathematics. Math can be a very abstract concept, and while it's embedded in most everything, the concepts are abstracted in a way that makes sense to people even if they don't realize they're learning calculus or factorization. The author of the article is asking if teaching raw math is really necessary, as most people get so frustrated with it they just give up entirely.
Critical thinking, logic, and problem solving exist in almost every subject. Literature, art, psychology, history, engineering, biology, physics all have avenues to the aforementioned thinking skills, and each is a different level removed from raw theoretical mathematics. Perhaps we need to consider if math is really necessary to achieve these skills?
Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics? My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job. Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking.
So by counterexample it's apparent not all mathematics is necessary for everyone... so I think these blanket answers I'm seeing floated around here by people who probably rely on mathematics daily for their jobs is a little short sighted.
The summary and headline seem to imply that the professor is questioning whether algebra/mathematics is necessary for anyone, but really he's asking if it's necessary for everyone. I have a degree in physics and computer engineering and I personally benefit tremendously from mathematics. But pretty much everyone I know (outside of my comp sci/phsyics friends) is terrible at math, and never use anything except simple calculations in their daily lives, and they get by just fine in their professions. Yes, they do a lot of math without being very aware of it, but they don't need to know the extent of the theory, and they aren't what I would consider especially proficient, which is what highschool at least aims to make you.
The professor in the article is asking something completely different and reasonable: since everyone is different, and everyone has a set of proficiencies and aptitudes, why do we try to teach everything a set of knowledge someone somewhere has somehow determined to be paramount? What if everyone's talent was fostered at a young age instead of forcing them to neglect their proficiencies and learn skills which perhaps they will never use? Would we end up with a society where everyone was an expert at something, rather than a society where everyone has a little knowledge everywhere but no real spectacular skill?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but really, I think they're worth considering. I for one was fostered at a young age because my parents identified that I was good at science and math, and I benefited tremendously. I could only imagine if that kind of fostering was afforded to every child, we might be better off.
"The availability of the Windows desktop is an important part of WOA. The desktop offers you a familiar place to interact with PCs, particularly files, storage, and networking, as well as a range of peripherals. You can use Windows Explorer, for example, to connect to external storage devices, transfer and manage files from a network share, or use multiple displays, and do all of this with or without an attached keyboard and mouse—your choice. This is all familiar, fast, efficient, and useful. You’ll have access to a deep array of control panel settings to customize and access a finer-grained level of control over your system, should you want to. And if you’ve used the Developer Preview with a touch-capable PC, you know that the desktop user-interface has been refined for touch interaction with improved user-interface affordances."
And by the way, the "old UI" in Windows 8 is crippled enough
How so exactly? If you boot to desktop and install an application launcher of your liking, the only metro aspects you'd ever realistically interact with are the metro search and the charms to access settings and wireless. Other than that, the Windows 7 interface is in tact.
sure, you can put links on the desktop or in the quicklaunch, but that doesn't take the place of a proper application launch menu.
Then install any of the hundreds of application launchers available for windows, maybe even one that completely replicated the start menu as linked to below.
they don't address the core problem: today's common attitude of design and/or simplicity being more important than intuitive workflow and needed flexibility
It's interesting that you don't see 3rd party options to modify the system to your liking as "needed flexibility." This situation is so incredibly simple. Microsoft designed something you don't like and doesn't work for you. Solution: customize it to fit your needs. Boot to desktop and install an application launcher you like, and you basically have the Windows 7 desktop back. The common attitude to simplify is common because consumers have voiced that's what they want in their personal computing devices. You obviously have needs beyond the common computer user, which is why Windows 8 still has a completely functional desktop and transparent filesystem.
metro is probably fine on a tablet. on a desktop it's completely useless. would you use the windows media center interface meant for televisions on your desktop?
Metro is fine on a tablet.... for whom? Metro is useless on a desktop... for whom? I think you're answering these questions with respect to yourself, but you fail to realize that many people use their desktops for nothing more than they would use their tablet: web browsing, media playback, one application at a time. My entire family uses their desktops this way, and they love the concept of Windows 8 after using it. Indeed, my father uses Windows 7 Media Center to browse his music on the kitchen PC because the interface is simplified. He doesn't need a file manager or the ability to launch dozens of windows on that PC, so Windows 8 will be installed there as soon as it's available. Yes, metro was not designed for workflows where you're using dozens of windows, but again, you're completely free to not use it as you see fit. That's the great thing about flexibility and extensions.
The only thing not optional about the start screen is that you boot into it. After that, you can go to the desktop and stay there for all eternity if you wish. Work there, install apps there, launch all your apps, and it looks and feels just like Windows 7 with all the performance improvements of Windows 8. If you really want, there are utilities that allow you to boot directly to the desktop, so you never even have to see the start screen. I'm sure we'll see more of these in the future, maybe even ones that replicate the old start menu if you really want. The one I linked to also includes a start button and a non-fullscreen app list.
Personally, I like metro apps and the new start screen, but the point is there are options for those that don't. Sure they're 3rd party, but Microsoft has to appeal to many customers, and they can't satisfy them all. Third party utilities that modify the stock GUI has been a part of Windows culture forever, especially since Windows XP with skins for the awful Luna theme. FRankly all this uproar about the default install options on a forum where modding, tinkering, and hacking is the norm is really surprising.
Yes! I've been arguing this here and elsewhere. I constantly see the line paraded here that "Windows 8 sucks with keyboard and mouse" and I have no idea how these people came to that conclusion, especially in the Release Preview, which I've been using daily with a Keyboard and Mouse since its release. With the keyboard, I have dozens of keyboard shortcuts that mimic any functionality I could use with tablet, and in some cases it's way more efficient. For instance, to launch an application pinned to the start menu I press Win+#, and it launches from anywhere. To do the equivalent with touch I need to go to the desktop then select the item... so it's more efficient with keyboard! Similarly, the mouse is more efficient at accessing hot corners, since I just bang the cursor to the screen limits. With touch I might have to switch hands I'm holding the tablet with to do a swipe gesture, so in that respect mouse is more efficient than touch. Finally the touch pad is the best of both worlds. With multi touch gestures, I have a proxy for touching the screen, but I have all the gestures and shortcuts of a mouse, with a keyboard and all its shortcuts 6 inches away.
So is Windows 8 designed for touch screen? Yes, and the result is you have a UI with many shortcuts and amenities for touch users. But it's also designed for touch pads, keyboards, and mice, as there are equally many shortcuts, gestures, and amenities for those input methods as well to make those user interfaces (UI) efficient.
It seems you're under the impression that Windows 8 is only for the full screen metro apps. Here are some points you might be interested in:
1) Everything you did in Windows 7 you can do in Windows 8 in terms of multitasking and multi-window management. Full screen is only a requirement for metro apps. The full desktop is still there in Windows 8.
2) Windows 8 has much better multi-monitor support, so for hardcore multi-taskers, it's a great improvement over Windows 7.
3) The ability to dock applications along side the desktop is a multitasking improvement. You can dock a music player, IM, and presumably as apps are added, things like doc references or Skype.
4) Win+tab allows you to see all open metro apps and switch between them in a flash.
If you installed Server 2012, you should also know you can switch between the sever core UI and the full Metro GUI.... so it is explicitly optional for the server install.
As for a consumer/desktop install, it's optional insofar as you don't actually ever HAVE to use it. You can boot right to the desktop, and launch all your Desktop programs from there. You don't even have to go into the metro start screen to shut down. The most you might ever have to do is full screen metro search, but then again there are about 1000 utilities like Google Desktop to search your desktop. What exactly is the use scenario where you're 100% forced into using the start screen daily in a "mind-blowingly frustrating" manner? Your complaints seem completely overblown and hyperbolic.
The windows 7 start menu has become a multifunction swiss army knife, and is now replaced by three separate screens: The start screen, the search screen (which includes the app list), and the settings panel. The linear list of 40 brown tiles is a vestiage of Windows 7 installers which install folders to the start menu. This isn't the way it should be done anymore... the start screen should be customized by you to your liking, including the programs and groupings as you see fit, not as an installer sees fit. The apps list is where you'll find the start menu equivalent of all your apps and their associated utilities. Now, maybe what you like specifically about the start menu is the tree layout (which is something I don't care for since it keeps everything hidden), but if you do you of course always have the option of maintaining your own tree of shortcuts in the form of a folder, which is of course all the start menu is after all: a folder of shortcuts.
Of course what the analyst said is not surprising to anyone who has used the preview releases. The experience with mouse and keyboard IS bad.
I see this constantly floated as if it is a fact, but almost never backed up. Just because you capitalize IS doesn't make it true.. I assert quite the opposite: that the keyboard+mouse experience is GOOD. And just as capitalizing GOOD doesn't make it true, I hereby provide some reasons for my assertion (which you should also retroactively do for yours). First, the biggest difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 is the lack of a classic start menu. Current users, if they use the classic start menu at all, use it simply to launch applications. Roughly no time comparable to the time spent using the machine over all is spent in the start menu. Fact is you can use Windows 8 and really never access the Metro start menu if you don't want to, so how is the keyboard + mouse experience significantly worse from Windows 7?
Further, included in Windows 8 is a vast array of Keyboard and Mouse shortcuts. These enhance the experience for keyboard only or mouse only users, providing more functions to each compared to Windows 7. Keyboard users get an array of metro shortcuts, accessing all the functions a touch user would. Mouse users get hot corners and a variety of gestures not found in Windows 7.
For primary mouse users specifically, the metro interface is a net gain. The number of clicks to action has been preserved for most tasks, but the metro start menu has more options in less clicks than the classic start menu (start -> option instead of start -> all programs -> folder -> option). Live tiles mean the need to access an option is completely removed, thus only one click is needed in some cases (start), and the larger size of the live tiles means time to access is overall lowered for more items according to Fitt's law, despite the full screen layout. Finally, the ability to fully dock applications side by side alleviate the need for constant switching between apps. For example, I dock the desktop and the media player or chat side by side. So instead of switching between what I'm doing and the music player or IM constantly (more clicks) I have everything I need right in front of me.
I think MS' best bet would be to allow a full regression to the "traditional" interface in order to maximize potential adopters
A full regression to the traditional interface is including the traditional start menu, which today users spend 0.00001% of their time using. I fail to see how a shortcut launcher makes/breaks the Windows desktop experience. As it stands, you can spend all your time in the Windows 8 desktop environment and the only thing you lack is the classic start menu. To get around that there are myriad ways to launch applications, many of which are used today in Windows 7 in response to how lacking the classic start menu is. How has the classic start menu all of a sudden become this golden standard in UI, when we've been lambasting it for years?
1st amendment rights would be defending Gartner from the government. It can't do anything to protect Gartner from Microsoft suing over libel or something else. Read the 1st amendment sometime.
theyre radically changing how applications are going to interact with the user (single fullscreen app, two contexts metro / regular, new widgets) thats going to affect 99% of users.
Except they aren't changing that, they are adding it in addition to the normal desktop paradigm we're all familiar with. You don't have to use any metro apps if you don't want to on the desktop.
Thank you for your well thought-out reply, and I agree on you with all of your points. The original list was made by a Symbian user and is with respect to Windows Phone 7.5 on the Lumia 900. His original list, which I read on some Symbian forum a while ago, has undergone many changes as he was originally wrong on many more points. I think he made the list in haste and anger at Nokia dropping Symbian without actually understanding many functions of the phone. So what was once one user's complaints of the platform versus compared to Symbian has been hijacked by haters of Windows Phone 7.5 and relabeled as a list of everything wrong with the platform.
Some of these issues are so blatantly false I don't understand. He claims the alarm clock tone can't be changed, but right where you set the alarm is an option to change it the ring tone. Or he says call history doesn't show call time older than the current day, but it clearly shows the time for calls up to a week old. These are black and white issues. Some of what he says are legitimate claims I won't argue with, but they are legitimate for other platforms too like iPhone (not supporting Flash, silverlight, no mass storage, no SD support, closed OS, etc.)
Most of what you are saying is false is actually true and a lot of your other points are just making excuses for what the OP is criticising.
To the best of my knowledge what I listed is correct. If you have any corrections please provide them. I realize there are many shortcomings with the platform, but most of them aren't even touched upon in this list. The big ones he mentioned were the hardware limitations (fixed with Windows 8), but he doesn't even touch upon things like the inability to run native code (also fixed in Windows 8). This isn't a list of shortcomings of a platform; it's a list of small minor features one particular user takes issue with.
You are either a class A shill or you don't even own a Windows Phone at all.
A list of things that are just flat out not true is something that needs to be countered, especially since it's something Slashdot loves to eat-up since it jives with the groupthink here. The source for this list is a Symbian users forum, and the post is pages and pages long with people arguing these various points. The list originally had many more falsehoods in it, and has since been modified to what the AC posted here.
Like I said, after you take out the ones that are flat out false, you're left with things that will be added in Windows 8, things that don't exist in either Android or iPhone, you're not left with much on the table that isn't incredible nit-picky. You can take any platform and write a list of 100 things you don't like about it, especially when you get down to the function level (I can't access this feature from this menu and that makes me mad!) because at that point you're list has become very personal. This list was originally compiled by a Symbian fan who likes the way Symbian in particular works, and wrote the list in contrast to Symbian (obviously he wrote it without using his Windows phone for very long because 25% of is isn't true.) This original AC is trying to frame the list as reasons for Windows Phone failing in general, and the fact that iPhone has many of the same limitations doesn't seem to corroborate his point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we all agreed that a desktop OS was a terrible idea on a tablet. OSX doesn't even have the touch amenities that Windows 7 does.
Waterworld is a guilty pleasure of mine. I watch it every time it's on TV. It's everything I love about bad 90s movies.
Barring comparability and performance regressions, at $20 why not upgrade? From my usage, Mountain Lion doesn't offer any real drastic changes, just some polish and some optional features, some of which are welcome, some which I'll probably never use. I haven't run into any showstopper bugs, and it's generally just a run-of-the mill upgrade with some nice features. Apple always claims they've added hundreds of new features, but their threshold for a "feature" seems to be lower and lower with each release, with even the lowliest check box being counted as a "feature" right next to full applications like iMessage or Reminders or Gatekeeper. When you separate the features by magnitude, there are only really a handful that stand out. I know every release of OSX is a "point" release, but Mountain Lion really captures the meaning behind the phrase.
Computer Science?
You're making the mistake of assuming that mathematics is the only gateway to critical thinking and logic. True, mathematics is one of the best gateways to higher-level thinking, but it is so abstract that many people are just plain bad at it. There are other ways to exercise the brain, and people practice them every day. There are many hard, challenging, important jobs out there where much mathematical theory is not entirely necessary. Yes perhaps they use math, but the math the use is distilled and put in a very clear context relevant to a task at hand, not pure theory which you learn in the classroom.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim those who do not know math are incapable of understanding the world. The level of mathematics taught in high school is the smallest shrivel of the scope of the mathematics field. You don't really start getting into the core of the subject until the graduate level. So are you saying anyone without a graduate level of education in mathematic is unable to understand the world? Or perhaps you think only a highschool level of educate is necessary to understand the world?
And how exactly do you define the world? The world is vast, and we can probably define and describe less than 1% of all we know with mathematical formulas. What about poets, artists, authors... do they not understand the world? I can't tell you the last time I read an equation that elicited more emotion than Whitman or Frost. So maybe it's apt to say those who do not understand love or nature or poetry or biology do not understand the world.
There are other ways to teach problem solving, logic, and critical thinking that don't include mathematics. Math can be a very abstract concept, and while it's embedded in most everything, the concepts are abstracted in a way that makes sense to people even if they don't realize they're learning calculus or factorization. The author of the article is asking if teaching raw math is really necessary, as most people get so frustrated with it they just give up entirely.
Critical thinking, logic, and problem solving exist in almost every subject. Literature, art, psychology, history, engineering, biology, physics all have avenues to the aforementioned thinking skills, and each is a different level removed from raw theoretical mathematics. Perhaps we need to consider if math is really necessary to achieve these skills?
Mathematics is a tool, but it's not a tool everyone uses to its fullest extent. In my high school, we teach all the way up to Calculus 2, and what percentage of the population actually uses that kind of mathematics? My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job. Would he be better at his job if he knew how to integrate? Maybe.... but it's not necessary for him, which is what the article is asking.
So by counterexample it's apparent not all mathematics is necessary for everyone... so I think these blanket answers I'm seeing floated around here by people who probably rely on mathematics daily for their jobs is a little short sighted.
The summary and headline seem to imply that the professor is questioning whether algebra/mathematics is necessary for anyone, but really he's asking if it's necessary for everyone. I have a degree in physics and computer engineering and I personally benefit tremendously from mathematics. But pretty much everyone I know (outside of my comp sci/phsyics friends) is terrible at math, and never use anything except simple calculations in their daily lives, and they get by just fine in their professions. Yes, they do a lot of math without being very aware of it, but they don't need to know the extent of the theory, and they aren't what I would consider especially proficient, which is what highschool at least aims to make you.
The professor in the article is asking something completely different and reasonable: since everyone is different, and everyone has a set of proficiencies and aptitudes, why do we try to teach everything a set of knowledge someone somewhere has somehow determined to be paramount? What if everyone's talent was fostered at a young age instead of forcing them to neglect their proficiencies and learn skills which perhaps they will never use? Would we end up with a society where everyone was an expert at something, rather than a society where everyone has a little knowledge everywhere but no real spectacular skill?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but really, I think they're worth considering. I for one was fostered at a young age because my parents identified that I was good at science and math, and I benefited tremendously. I could only imagine if that kind of fostering was afforded to every child, we might be better off.
Windows 8 on ARM already does no longer have the old UI.
It certainly does. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-windows-for-the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx
"The availability of the Windows desktop is an important part of WOA. The desktop offers you a familiar place to interact with PCs, particularly files, storage, and networking, as well as a range of peripherals. You can use Windows Explorer, for example, to connect to external storage devices, transfer and manage files from a network share, or use multiple displays, and do all of this with or without an attached keyboard and mouse—your choice. This is all familiar, fast, efficient, and useful. You’ll have access to a deep array of control panel settings to customize and access a finer-grained level of control over your system, should you want to. And if you’ve used the Developer Preview with a touch-capable PC, you know that the desktop user-interface has been refined for touch interaction with improved user-interface affordances."
And by the way, the "old UI" in Windows 8 is crippled enough
How so exactly? If you boot to desktop and install an application launcher of your liking, the only metro aspects you'd ever realistically interact with are the metro search and the charms to access settings and wireless. Other than that, the Windows 7 interface is in tact.
sure, you can put links on the desktop or in the quicklaunch, but that doesn't take the place of a proper application launch menu.
Then install any of the hundreds of application launchers available for windows, maybe even one that completely replicated the start menu as linked to below.
they don't address the core problem: today's common attitude of design and/or simplicity being more important than intuitive workflow and needed flexibility
It's interesting that you don't see 3rd party options to modify the system to your liking as "needed flexibility." This situation is so incredibly simple. Microsoft designed something you don't like and doesn't work for you. Solution: customize it to fit your needs. Boot to desktop and install an application launcher you like, and you basically have the Windows 7 desktop back. The common attitude to simplify is common because consumers have voiced that's what they want in their personal computing devices. You obviously have needs beyond the common computer user, which is why Windows 8 still has a completely functional desktop and transparent filesystem.
metro is probably fine on a tablet. on a desktop it's completely useless. would you use the windows media center interface meant for televisions on your desktop?
Metro is fine on a tablet.... for whom? Metro is useless on a desktop... for whom? I think you're answering these questions with respect to yourself, but you fail to realize that many people use their desktops for nothing more than they would use their tablet: web browsing, media playback, one application at a time. My entire family uses their desktops this way, and they love the concept of Windows 8 after using it. Indeed, my father uses Windows 7 Media Center to browse his music on the kitchen PC because the interface is simplified. He doesn't need a file manager or the ability to launch dozens of windows on that PC, so Windows 8 will be installed there as soon as it's available. Yes, metro was not designed for workflows where you're using dozens of windows, but again, you're completely free to not use it as you see fit. That's the great thing about flexibility and extensions.
The only thing not optional about the start screen is that you boot into it. After that, you can go to the desktop and stay there for all eternity if you wish. Work there, install apps there, launch all your apps, and it looks and feels just like Windows 7 with all the performance improvements of Windows 8. If you really want, there are utilities that allow you to boot directly to the desktop, so you never even have to see the start screen. I'm sure we'll see more of these in the future, maybe even ones that replicate the old start menu if you really want. The one I linked to also includes a start button and a non-fullscreen app list.
Personally, I like metro apps and the new start screen, but the point is there are options for those that don't. Sure they're 3rd party, but Microsoft has to appeal to many customers, and they can't satisfy them all. Third party utilities that modify the stock GUI has been a part of Windows culture forever, especially since Windows XP with skins for the awful Luna theme. FRankly all this uproar about the default install options on a forum where modding, tinkering, and hacking is the norm is really surprising.
Yes! I've been arguing this here and elsewhere. I constantly see the line paraded here that "Windows 8 sucks with keyboard and mouse" and I have no idea how these people came to that conclusion, especially in the Release Preview, which I've been using daily with a Keyboard and Mouse since its release. With the keyboard, I have dozens of keyboard shortcuts that mimic any functionality I could use with tablet, and in some cases it's way more efficient. For instance, to launch an application pinned to the start menu I press Win+#, and it launches from anywhere. To do the equivalent with touch I need to go to the desktop then select the item... so it's more efficient with keyboard! Similarly, the mouse is more efficient at accessing hot corners, since I just bang the cursor to the screen limits. With touch I might have to switch hands I'm holding the tablet with to do a swipe gesture, so in that respect mouse is more efficient than touch. Finally the touch pad is the best of both worlds. With multi touch gestures, I have a proxy for touching the screen, but I have all the gestures and shortcuts of a mouse, with a keyboard and all its shortcuts 6 inches away.
So is Windows 8 designed for touch screen? Yes, and the result is you have a UI with many shortcuts and amenities for touch users. But it's also designed for touch pads, keyboards, and mice, as there are equally many shortcuts, gestures, and amenities for those input methods as well to make those user interfaces (UI) efficient.
It seems you're under the impression that Windows 8 is only for the full screen metro apps. Here are some points you might be interested in:
1) Everything you did in Windows 7 you can do in Windows 8 in terms of multitasking and multi-window management. Full screen is only a requirement for metro apps. The full desktop is still there in Windows 8.
2) Windows 8 has much better multi-monitor support, so for hardcore multi-taskers, it's a great improvement over Windows 7.
3) The ability to dock applications along side the desktop is a multitasking improvement. You can dock a music player, IM, and presumably as apps are added, things like doc references or Skype.
4) Win+tab allows you to see all open metro apps and switch between them in a flash.
If you installed Server 2012, you should also know you can switch between the sever core UI and the full Metro GUI.... so it is explicitly optional for the server install.
As for a consumer/desktop install, it's optional insofar as you don't actually ever HAVE to use it. You can boot right to the desktop, and launch all your Desktop programs from there. You don't even have to go into the metro start screen to shut down. The most you might ever have to do is full screen metro search, but then again there are about 1000 utilities like Google Desktop to search your desktop. What exactly is the use scenario where you're 100% forced into using the start screen daily in a "mind-blowingly frustrating" manner? Your complaints seem completely overblown and hyperbolic.
If it was a shill post, wouldn't he have said "I had to do a Bing search..." ?
What's wrong with auto-hide? Also 3rd parties to the rescue: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/54842-taskbar-always-top-disable-enable.html
The windows 7 start menu has become a multifunction swiss army knife, and is now replaced by three separate screens: The start screen, the search screen (which includes the app list), and the settings panel. The linear list of 40 brown tiles is a vestiage of Windows 7 installers which install folders to the start menu. This isn't the way it should be done anymore... the start screen should be customized by you to your liking, including the programs and groupings as you see fit, not as an installer sees fit. The apps list is where you'll find the start menu equivalent of all your apps and their associated utilities. Now, maybe what you like specifically about the start menu is the tree layout (which is something I don't care for since it keeps everything hidden), but if you do you of course always have the option of maintaining your own tree of shortcuts in the form of a folder, which is of course all the start menu is after all: a folder of shortcuts.
Of course what the analyst said is not surprising to anyone who has used the preview releases. The experience with mouse and keyboard IS bad.
I see this constantly floated as if it is a fact, but almost never backed up. Just because you capitalize IS doesn't make it true.. I assert quite the opposite: that the keyboard+mouse experience is GOOD. And just as capitalizing GOOD doesn't make it true, I hereby provide some reasons for my assertion (which you should also retroactively do for yours). First, the biggest difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 is the lack of a classic start menu. Current users, if they use the classic start menu at all, use it simply to launch applications. Roughly no time comparable to the time spent using the machine over all is spent in the start menu. Fact is you can use Windows 8 and really never access the Metro start menu if you don't want to, so how is the keyboard + mouse experience significantly worse from Windows 7?
Further, included in Windows 8 is a vast array of Keyboard and Mouse shortcuts. These enhance the experience for keyboard only or mouse only users, providing more functions to each compared to Windows 7. Keyboard users get an array of metro shortcuts, accessing all the functions a touch user would. Mouse users get hot corners and a variety of gestures not found in Windows 7.
For primary mouse users specifically, the metro interface is a net gain. The number of clicks to action has been preserved for most tasks, but the metro start menu has more options in less clicks than the classic start menu (start -> option instead of start -> all programs -> folder -> option). Live tiles mean the need to access an option is completely removed, thus only one click is needed in some cases (start), and the larger size of the live tiles means time to access is overall lowered for more items according to Fitt's law, despite the full screen layout. Finally, the ability to fully dock applications side by side alleviate the need for constant switching between apps. For example, I dock the desktop and the media player or chat side by side. So instead of switching between what I'm doing and the music player or IM constantly (more clicks) I have everything I need right in front of me.
I think MS' best bet would be to allow a full regression to the "traditional" interface in order to maximize potential adopters
A full regression to the traditional interface is including the traditional start menu, which today users spend 0.00001% of their time using. I fail to see how a shortcut launcher makes/breaks the Windows desktop experience. As it stands, you can spend all your time in the Windows 8 desktop environment and the only thing you lack is the classic start menu. To get around that there are myriad ways to launch applications, many of which are used today in Windows 7 in response to how lacking the classic start menu is. How has the classic start menu all of a sudden become this golden standard in UI, when we've been lambasting it for years?
1st amendment rights would be defending Gartner from the government. It can't do anything to protect Gartner from Microsoft suing over libel or something else. Read the 1st amendment sometime.
theyre radically changing how applications are going to interact with the user (single fullscreen app, two contexts metro / regular, new widgets) thats going to affect 99% of users.
Except they aren't changing that, they are adding it in addition to the normal desktop paradigm we're all familiar with. You don't have to use any metro apps if you don't want to on the desktop.
Thank you for your well thought-out reply, and I agree on you with all of your points. The original list was made by a Symbian user and is with respect to Windows Phone 7.5 on the Lumia 900. His original list, which I read on some Symbian forum a while ago, has undergone many changes as he was originally wrong on many more points. I think he made the list in haste and anger at Nokia dropping Symbian without actually understanding many functions of the phone. So what was once one user's complaints of the platform versus compared to Symbian has been hijacked by haters of Windows Phone 7.5 and relabeled as a list of everything wrong with the platform.
Some of these issues are so blatantly false I don't understand. He claims the alarm clock tone can't be changed, but right where you set the alarm is an option to change it the ring tone. Or he says call history doesn't show call time older than the current day, but it clearly shows the time for calls up to a week old. These are black and white issues. Some of what he says are legitimate claims I won't argue with, but they are legitimate for other platforms too like iPhone (not supporting Flash, silverlight, no mass storage, no SD support, closed OS, etc.)
Most of what you are saying is false is actually true and a lot of your other points are just making excuses for what the OP is criticising.
To the best of my knowledge what I listed is correct. If you have any corrections please provide them. I realize there are many shortcomings with the platform, but most of them aren't even touched upon in this list. The big ones he mentioned were the hardware limitations (fixed with Windows 8), but he doesn't even touch upon things like the inability to run native code (also fixed in Windows 8). This isn't a list of shortcomings of a platform; it's a list of small minor features one particular user takes issue with.
You are either a class A shill or you don't even own a Windows Phone at all.
A list of things that are just flat out not true is something that needs to be countered, especially since it's something Slashdot loves to eat-up since it jives with the groupthink here. The source for this list is a Symbian users forum, and the post is pages and pages long with people arguing these various points. The list originally had many more falsehoods in it, and has since been modified to what the AC posted here.
Like I said, after you take out the ones that are flat out false, you're left with things that will be added in Windows 8, things that don't exist in either Android or iPhone, you're not left with much on the table that isn't incredible nit-picky. You can take any platform and write a list of 100 things you don't like about it, especially when you get down to the function level (I can't access this feature from this menu and that makes me mad!) because at that point you're list has become very personal. This list was originally compiled by a Symbian fan who likes the way Symbian in particular works, and wrote the list in contrast to Symbian (obviously he wrote it without using his Windows phone for very long because 25% of is isn't true.) This original AC is trying to frame the list as reasons for Windows Phone failing in general, and the fact that iPhone has many of the same limitations doesn't seem to corroborate his point of view.