Windows Blue Confirmed, to hit RTM in june with august release

[Imaginer]

By the way, the split onscreen touch keyboard is alright and was used for all of my recent responses on this forum. I would be faster on a traditional typing keyboard but that is the nature of the beast.

[Cerb]

Originally Posted by Imaginer

I thought Modern applications already have a inactive mode to reduce memory use when not active and being on display, and also still allow the quick recovery once put active by switching to them from the Modern taskbar.

I mean with several "Metro" and "desktop" applications active at once, happily cooperating, including a managed shared clipboard and such, rather than going into and out of the "desktop" WM. "Metro" apps would need to be able to take a whole side of the screen, of course, regardless of how many could end up being displayed at once.

On a desktop, it is easier to precisely move and manage small and overlapping windows because their titlebar size isn't finicky for a mouse/trackball/pen. But since Windows 8 was designed for touch as well, having to deal with managing windows gets harder.

What you really get is far greater information density. If you ever try Linux, give some tiling WMs a try. Really simple and elegant, and really quick (as in you, the user can be much more efficient than with an overlapping WM), but there's always a status bar you want wider, to read it all, an image section you want taller, and so on, leading to lots of maximize/restore cycles, half defeating the usefulness of it. It works well for very simple UIs (image/doc viewer, or a minimalistic FM like Rox), but beyond that, needs the application designed around it. Touch might need to be able to deal with lower precision, but there's no need for the WM to end up being wasted w/o touch. It would need to get much more flexible, though.

As in from what I am possibly understanding, Modern applications, as the one that is the pure added value? I feel that Windows 8 draws traditional and Modern as both as effective to an acceptable degree (can be better) but to say Modern applications are the tail end? There is a reason I brought up my Opera example.

Not the tail end, but that they are too separate, in UI terms. If it were more convenient to use them together with "legacy" applications, it wouldn't be so annoying. Personally, I think Metro/Modern is a tail end, that MS will be paying too much for over the long haul (they'll either end having to replace it with something similar, or turn it into a monster, over time), but that type of GUI was and will be needed, including support for a markup-based UI, with a scripting language better than VB.

I can see all the start screen complaints - and as I iterated, didn't faze me much due to using a trackball.

I hate that for a different reason: MS took 11 years to get the start menu from released to being really good (recent+search did it for me), and just as I was warming up to it, they went and took it away .

[Imaginer]

Originally Posted by Cerb

I mean with several "Metro" and "desktop" applications active at once, happily cooperating, including a managed shared clipboard and such, rather than going into and out of the "desktop" WM. "Metro" apps would need to be able to take a whole side of the screen, of course, regardless of how many could end up being displayed at once.

What you really get is far greater information density.

For me, I don't work with actively needing to view information from multiple (more than two, but sometimes 3) programs. Working with more than 3 programs and needing to view their information all at once simultaneously, yes I would say there is a need for as many Modern (I like the word) applications open at the same time. Clipboarding, I had no problem between Modern and desktop, but depends if the Modern app wants you to. (the major reason for these programs to play together in the first place)

In that case, I vouch for a browser that lets me 'window' tabs and tile them, leaving me to put the master browser window as a full screen window on a monitor, or have that tile with another. (I am sure there is someone that put this in Linux) but my main reason for not touching it involves 0- my current software library 1- time to bootswap 2- virtualization eats resources 3- virtualization/emulation of Windows is not as ideal and can raise as much problems as dealing with Linux)

At least we both agree, more divisions than just two for Modern and desktop applications at different sizes and location. There can also be multiple desktop panes with the divisions.

If you ever try Linux, give some tiling WMs a try. Really simple and elegant, and really quick (as in you, the user can be much more efficient than with an overlapping WM), but there's always a status bar you want wider, to read it all, an image section you want taller, and so on, leading to lots of maximize/restore cycles, half defeating the usefulness of it. It works well for very simple UIs (image/doc viewer, or a minimalistic FM like Rox), but beyond that, needs the application designed around it. Touch might need to be able to deal with lower precision, but there's no need for the WM to end up being wasted w/o touch. It would need to get much more flexible, though.

The desktop windows manager isn't wasted for me. I still use it. All I like to see is that the 'touch pointer' I mentioned gets natively implemented to make it viable as a touch additional interface (much like a touchscreen touchpad/clickpad on laptops. Microsoft and other mobile remote desktop clients had this for ages.)

Not the tail end, but that they are too separate, in UI terms. If it were more convenient to use them together with "legacy" applications, it wouldn't be so annoying. Personally, I think Metro/Modern is a tail end, that MS will be paying too much for over the long haul (they'll either end having to replace it with something similar, or turn it into a monster, over time), but that type of GUI was and will be needed, including support for a markup-based UI, with a scripting language better than VB.

It feels separate in that there is no common way of having the 'file, edit, help' menu bar and feels very simplistic versus a paradigm change to the desktop. Modern and mobile apps are specific in their layouts due to the natural tablet real estate.

But the best implementation of the way Microsoft should have taken the modern app UI is the same that they taken for modern IE 10. Have those menu bars hidden until you need it. Under a traditional mouse method, a visible cue to click your mouse or hover to reveal the bar. Hell that can also be applied to current desktop applications, complete with scrolling elements to horizontally scroll the menu/ribbon. Perhaps that is a good solution of truly integrating the modern and desktop integration.

I hate that for a different reason: MS took 11 years to get the start menu from released to being really good (recent+search did it for me), and just as I was warming up to it, they went and took it away .

Good thing I am still young enough to be resilient and flexible to change.

[hclarkjr]

Microsoft to allow users to jump straight to desktop in Windows 8.1?

Microsoft may be working on an option to jump straight to the desktop for users in Windows Blue, according to code found inside important operating system files. For as long as Windows 8 has been out, many have criticized the usage of the Start Screen in favor of the usage of the Start Menu.
For those upgrading to Windows Blue, you might now have the option to remove the Start Screen. According to the report, after examining the code in twinui.dll, there is a line that is "responsible for disabling the Start Screen" and after disabling or modifying the code it makes the system "go to the desktop automatically." Those using Windows 8 or the leaked Windows 8.1 build, you will obviously know by now that this option isn't yet available.


http://www.winbeta.org/news/microsof...e-start-screen

[postmortemIA]

Originally Posted by hclarkjr

Microsoft to allow users to jump straight to desktop in Windows 8.1?

Microsoft may be working on an option to jump straight to the desktop for users in Windows Blue, according to code found inside important operating system files. For as long as Windows 8 has been out, many have criticized the usage of the Start Screen in favor of the usage of the Start Menu.
For those upgrading to Windows Blue, you might now have the option to remove the Start Screen. According to the report, after examining the code in twinui.dll, there is a line that is "responsible for disabling the Start Screen" and after disabling or modifying the code it makes the system "go to the desktop automatically." Those using Windows 8 or the leaked Windows 8.1 build, you will obviously know by now that this option isn't yet available.


http://www.winbeta.org/news/microsof...e-start-screen

great, but what about start menu? regular desktop as is on windows 8 is pretty much useless unless you know how to bring shortcuts to desktop.

[hclarkjr]

The Return of the Start Button: Microsoft Switches to Plan B for Windows 8

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-R...8-345913.shtml

[blurredvision]

Originally Posted by postmortemIA

great, but what about start menu? regular desktop as is on windows 8 is pretty much useless unless you know how to bring shortcuts to desktop.

On W7, you press the Windows key and choose your program from a list. On W8, you press the Windows key and choose your program from a list.

[billybob-ssd]

Can I has my start menu back now????

[hclarkjr]

Microsoft: Windows 8.1 will be available in June as a public preview

[reallyscrued]

Originally Posted by blurredvision

On W7, you press the Windows key and choose your program from a list. On W8, you press the Windows key and choose your program from a list.

You don't use W7 correctly.

W7, I can hit the start button on my keyboard, type "Printers" and hit enter and it takes me to the control panel subgrouping of printers.

W7, I can hit start menu, type or choose from list of groups, and my entire desktop isn't blacked out in the meantime.

[vailr]

@hclarkjr: This thread title:
"Windows Blue Confirmed, to hit RTM in june with august release"
might more accurately say:
"Windows 8.1 to hit Public Preview in June, RTM in August(?), and retail release in October(?)".

[mikeymikec]

"Microsoft prepares rethink on Windows 8 flagship software"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/330c8b8e-b...44feabdc0.html

After the farce of Windows 8 (waits for Mem to bleat "it's the future!"), I'm not expecting great things from MS at any point soon. I can't remember where I read it (perhaps on these forums), but I remember reading that the Start button is going to be brought back, but it invokes the Start screen, which makes me think "MS, you've completely missed the point, congratulations".

[hclarkjr]

Originally Posted by vailr

@hclarkjr: This thread title:
"Windows Blue Confirmed, to hit RTM in june with august release"
might more accurately say:
"Windows 8.1 to hit Public Preview in June, RTM in August(?), and retail release in October(?)".

title has been changed to many times, it will not let me change it anymore without contacting a mod