@Imaginer,
I have no idea what you said in either of your two posts. But as long as you understand it, that's all that matters.
Let me insert words inside my "somewhat" satirical tone.
With regards to the Start menu, I can pin a limited amount of programs permanently in a limited vertical space. There is also an improved Task manager on the desktop side of things in Windows 8 (and perhaps beyond) and I would use the one in 8 instead.
Then there is the Control panel. In XP it is a bunch of icons to open more windows of icons (which in that those icons may not even have additional suggestions of what the menu settings correlate to). In XP, you have only one, fixed, single desktop background. Since XP forward, you can have multiple wallpapers (have not used Vista, but I am sure it has multiple cycling wallpapers).
Then there is the revamped Windows Exploer / File Explorer and the ribbon which is an improvement. The hidden ribbon in File Explorer and can be shown all the time versus hidden when not in use. This is in contrast with a drop down, drive down menu of cascading (every single fucking time) for window menus in Windows explorer that is the same thing (refering to File, Edit, Help), of which unlike the ribbon, is not emphasized on size for major functions.
The ribbon changes and is context sensitive depending on what folder you are in. In 8, going to "My computer" folder where you see all of your drives, and above that, all of your folders in your library, you would notice the menu bar change to "Computer" and eliminates the "Home" and "View". In "Computer" there are things in the ribbon like "Access Media" and "Map Network Drive", grouped under "Network" section of the ribbon. This adds another level of organization that probably would be "Edit>Settings>Network>Media folders".
The "View" in the menu bar, has listings of file presentation that dynamically changes, with a highlight, and permanently chosen when clicked, something that does not exist in XP.
Native ISO running, opening, and exploring is also a benefit in 8 (hopefully beyond) that I have not seen in XP or 7. That is something Modern/Metro users would never see ever in many cases. It is the power desktop users that would benefit in having this handy, without third party install and manually mounting of an ISO. The ISO (being treated like a zip file for viewing the contents) can be mounted as a virtual drive.
All of that above and you still say...
The best way to ensure Windows 9 is a raging success is to show just a little bit more respect towards desktop users. Wait...make that a LOT more respect. A helluva lot more respect towards desktop users.
Nothing has been neutered in mouse and keyboard functionality in the desktop space. I made mention of additional mousing in lifting and dragging a mouse [straining your wrists over time doing so] over a longer distance [if one does not size their tiles to smallest in 8.1] in the Start screen. I also would like to mention that the desktop tile is not as pronounced in the default install configuration of the Start screen.
That above, has no hampering on the desktop side.
In fact I would also add that...
In XP up to 7, there is the way of a mess of desktop icons organization (despite aligning to grid). This option is limited in the number of icons/tiles being placed on the entire desktop versus a Start screen of tiles (of sized importance) that are horizontally scrolled for infinite icon pinning. "Yeah, no." to eliminating Modern/Metro on that front, because...
1. To use the desktop as a prime launcher for organization, one would have to click on "Show Desktop", launch their program, and reveal all of their active windows one by one - should one was already working with active and shown windows in their flow.
2. This is in contrast with a Start icon/Windows Key/Windows icon on the bezel of a monitor if on a laptop/tablet of accessing your immediate shortcuts, opening a program with the tile shortcut, and have your active and shown windows uninterrupted and still as arranged.
3. This organization does not need third party tools. A OSX like bar down at the bottom would still take up space. The Task manager can still have things pinned to it. It is in no way showing disrespect to the desktop.
I get it...touch is all the rage on mobile devices...simpletons who want to watch videos and don't have a keyboard and mouse...I get all that for "mobile" devices. When I go mobile, *I* dont wanna carry around a keyboard and mouse. But when I am at home(or rather sitting at a desktop computer) I want absolutely *NOTHING* to do with a touch-screen interface.
Segregation, I do not buy that in the computing world. Touch adds options. This comes from a happy Surface Pro 2 user, I can still manipulate File Explorer just fine with touch, certain third party programs with touch to an extent just fine (and options for a visualized mouse if needed or a traditional mouse or my now used pointing device in a trackball). You do not need to even buy a multitouch monitor. Desktop functionality is still there.
You are probably annoyed by the growing trend of touch screen devices and having a bias of the possible "PC decline" that you may have read from other opinions. If any, the integration would continue the PC onward as we know it. This is a plus.
When I am at home, in my castle, sitting at my desk, staring at my 21.5" monitor with my keyboard and mouse...I have no interest whatsoever in fondling my monitor with my fingers. I will not be reduced to a chimpanzee in my home.
And again, you do not need touch. This is coming from a user with a HTPC and a desktop gaming machine with dual monitors, using a keyboard and trackball that both have Windows 8.1 installed. I do not have any third party organization tools or Start menu replacements.
Since installing 8.1, I have eliminated my desktop icons, sans recycle bin, and completely used the Start screen in immediate program access. In fact, my cursor is even closer to the tiles I want, from pressing the Windows key on the keyboard to reveal the Start screen to launch programs, versus moving the cursor to the bottom corner to the Start button, moving the cursor to a tile (drumming through the expanded menu selections of a "All programs" pinning) and moving the cursor back to where I was in a workflow of windows.
So, for Windows 9 to be a success either offer multiple UI modes for the user to select what they are most comfortable with. Or release at the very least 2 different versions of Windows 9. "Windows 9 for Desktops" and "Windows 9 for Chimps". Errrr, I mean "Windows 9 for Mobile".
Read my integration versus segregation. I do not agree in this. And judging by your slander, it seems you do carry a bias without explanation through all of your quotes other than subjective ones. I brought in objective, functional reasons (and to an extent, improvements) in working and workflow.
I honestly think Microsoft knows why Windows 8 is a catastrophe and I believe they know how to turn it around in Windows 9. Desktop users were completely abandoned, an afterthought. And people were not happy about that.
Because, humanity always dislikes the first new thing they see if it does not agree with their world view or if it disturbs it without further analysis, experimentation, or playing about.
And again, desktop users are in no way or form abandoned. This feeling is mixed with the Windows Store release only catering to Modern/Metro layouts, and the feeling there is not going to be any more desktop software. But in the past, desktop users already KNOW how to get their desktop software and develop it if the need arises.
In the current desktop area, one can run signed code and unsigned code (ones that require Administrator rights or a User Access Control (UAC) prompt.
But if one actually looks in the Windows Store, there ARE listings of desktop programs in the mix with Modern/Metro apps. Clicking the desktop offering in the Windows Store, would tell one to go to the webpage for further information, as that is the "best for the moment" time to get the software. And you still say the desktop user is being abandoned?
Windows 9 for Desktops - make UI predominantly centered on keyboard and mouse as primary means of input.
That means eliminating any other input option that is not a mouse and keyboard or make them as unworkable unless one does have a keyboard and mouse. Again, as a Surface Pro 2 user, I would disagree on this. And this wanted option shows the immense bias in your quotes per above in my post.
Background, themes, colors, sounds, anything and everything. And give us multiple ways to do it. Some people complain about choices. I relish them because each one has its purpose.
Backgrounds in 8, 7, and Vista (not XP) allowed multiple cyclings of a slide show of a custom periodic time. One can still change the color of the title bar and taskbar. One can still change sounds. But these are all superficial once things are said and done in program access, file access, and workflow manipulation (all of which are actually improved in 8.1 and earlier to an extent in 8)
One thing I would add, is the ability to individually change the tile color of shortcuts in 8/8.1's Start screen, in addition to automatically assign the tile color.
Oh, and lastly. The asinine idea I hear going around as a rumor of making Metro Apps windows that can float on the desktop??? Ummmm, no, not only NO, HELL NO. DO NOT MIX ANYTHING METRO WITH TRADITIIONAL DESKTOP. That is a FAIL!!! What's the point of using Metro Apps in Windows on a desktop? Just write a traditional windowed application.
The added benefit of some Modern/Metro apps being windowed, is that is the return of always shown Widgets. This would be VERY NICE if it can be independently scaled and the scaling settings are saved for windowed Modern/Metro apps. Even better if they can be snapped with multiple snapping options vertically to one side.
Your solution is simple, if it was a rollback, thus no work needed.
However, for the longest time, I wanted a tablet PC. No design has been feasible (hardware and software) up until now. Touch has been present even with XP tablet mode, but it was also clunky. Swivel hinges are an additional step in deploying to a tablet mode and take up space. Now we are seeing various other hybrid deploy abilities in ultrabook convertibles that actually is more simple than the cumbersome swivel hinge. The OS, naturally grew to that anyways, because things like the on-screen keyboard, was there and also pen recognition (not to mention, handwriting recognition now).
I shown how you (and other misguided opinions for facts) came to this conclusion of the desktop being abandoned, the initial perceived touch opinions being lampooned, and the stubbornness of some people. I also pointed out your subjectivity when I pointed out objectivity and an actual functional counter when you claim that...
.I have no interest whatsoever in fondling my monitor with my fingers. I will not be reduced to a chimpanzee in my home.
There, is THAT the response are you looking for in my blatant satirical tone?
TL-DR, You still can have your cake, while others can take part in the same cake with their utensil of choice, and can eat it outside of the dining room.
Addendum: If you think my bias is set based on my Surface Pro 2 (and Surface Pro 1) experiences, at the point of having either device, I already have 8 (and 8.1) installed earlier thanks in part of the cheap upgrade that amounts to a typical PC game (and I did opt for the added Media Center in both of them - when it was available for free). I also did not jump on 8 initially when it first came out either, which tells you the possible time frame of the OS upgrade for me. I also did not have any excessive discomfort in mouse cursor movement (trackball for better arm and wrist health) that may arise if the Start screen and all mentions of dragging to the Start menu button being used.
Facebook
Twitter