It started with an M. Where is that, in terms of more or less used? And with groups not being separated from one another, it's annoying to scroll around.
If it started with an "M", it is better to type the search instead. What would make it better, is if the Start Screen actively displays things starting with the letter M for what you pinned on the Start screen.
It does "try" to actively filter the "All Programs" screen of hitting the down arrow in the Start screen and if you type something. There is no need to scroll if you do not want to.
Holding Ctrl and mouse wheeling any direction, will zoom to your selection of things like the overall program group folder name. But this area can be done better, in that the listing of program folder groups should not be broken across columns if possible. This should implement the number selection and single letter selection tiles of that view to look things up beginning with such and not just zooming back into a particular "All Programs" part of the screen.
Which is a good thing, because it means most of them fit in a small space, which is easy tos can the text of.
It is easy to make the text out, because the text does not clash with the background (Start menu or Start screen without the desktop background set).
The Control Panel listing in 7, aside from some name changes, is identical to XP's.
And, that is by default. One can change it to the Classic Control Panel. I have done so in the past. Windows 8 from the get go is a transitional OS, and some ways, work as a hybrid with both desktop and Modern (Surface Pro and other like devices).
Now Microsoft is at risk upsetting another user base, one that relies on the old, and have slowly gotten used to the new, not just the old users either.
I know that even if they completely abandoned the desktop, there are desktop applications that cannot be transitioned to a modern setup that easily.
Things like Visual Studio for one is the biggest animal in the house besides Office itself. There is no way they are abandoning the desktop because of that aspect.
But things like a cleaner, more modern layout in some apps and for tablet devices and hybrids? There is no way Modern would go away in that space either. Because if it does, then it is basically back to the "Tablet" editions of the OS, that has not took off either, but users like myself would want something to be just as on the go, but still work well with their programs installed, environment, and systems.
As opposed to just browsing to an image, and having a distinct option to turn the slide show off...
I do not think that it needs to be spelled out that if a single image is selected, the slide show would not work or just slide shows one image.
Vertical space is a scarcity today. It has not increased one little bit. Screens have gotten wider, but not at all taller, and on most cases, they've gotten shorter. The ribbon should have been a sidebar, or moveable to one, from day one.
But here is the other problem, words are not written like Asian languages at times (top down approach). Words can be lengthy. A vertical menu of words can take horizontal space as much as vertical.
A listing of icons, especially in paint programs, are now standard and recognizable. Try having something iconed as "preview" and "details" in the smallest icon for space reasons with no wording. And on that note, try keeping that number of vertical icons to something like a 10.6 inch tablet PC. The ribbon is nicer on a tablet, it is manageable on a desktop.
Going up and down is still happening almost as much, though, because the whole ribbon is far above whatever you're doing with it. From a file or document up into the ribbon, then around to the tab you need, then back down into the ribbon, then back down into what you're doing. I agree about side to side movement, but I see that as a good argument for a sidebar layout, which also has the benefit of not taking up the more valuable vertical inches.
Microsoft had an excellent example with MS Paint (earlier ones) of all reasons. If it can be rotated 90 degrees, and pushed to the left, it would be a good tool all around, tablet or desktop alike.
The left hand for selection of controls, right hand for stylus, or flipped for southpaw. Likewise, on the desktop, since I mentioned that it is easier for a horizontal cursor hand and wrist movement, this back and forth motion would be of ease.
But you know what? People will cry foul if it was changed dramatically in that manner to have the ribbon be vertical (again). I also would like browser tabs to be vertical as well, but I do not see tabs becoming like the tabs on a three ring binder just yet.
And you know what? They consistently suck at giving information, requiring changing settings on those web pages, including most online stores, for basically the same reasons. The guys making *n*x file managers, including Apple, were not at all unaware of this as a UI concept. They made the better decision: if a user has a view type selected, that's the view type to use, until it is changed by the user.
Very little, would I have the option (or need to) customize a store front's webpage. I go in and use their search options and I would be more disappointed if their search did not get me what semblance of a result I do want.
If you are talking about general browsing, then I am indifferent to doing so. I can click on a selection to gather detail product information and basic review listings and review description previews.
That there is, and I hope they get to doing a bunch of coding that will make some MS devs get gray hair quicker, to make them work together.
How do you do it for all folders, preemptively, without the old reg hack? I like 7 over 8, but even 7 I have several fixes for
.
Change the parent folder to a view you want, go into View>Options>Change Folder and Search Options. Under the View tab, click "Apply Current View to all folders". Some drive down is necessary and at the same time, unecessary (Options to Change Folder and Search Options being one) but this applies the view from the parent to all child folders. And it sticks.
That's not a fix. There needs to be one interface type active. Period. That's what gets people: that they have 2 or 3 main OS views. If Modern is active, desktop shouldn't be, and vise versa, in a user-selectable way, in which an application starting or gaining focus must not change (merging them and just making it a desktop/taskbar settings dialog, or corner icon to click, would probably be best, if not merging them completely).
A Phillips screw driver works with Phillips heads, but a flat head may work in a pinch if still sized as a Phillips driver (not ideal).
The desktop and mobile approaches apply here too. I am not solely reliant on touch on my Surface Pro, and at times touch makes things convenient. I will however convert to a Type Cover and trackball for desktop applications in a beat if needed, but still have the quick on hand touch I need.
Because my desktop PC programs work in a mobile setting, the Desktop/Modern hybridization of things would follow as well. And I do not need to wait for "an app for that" to follow, because I can leverage functionality of current software and make light of new ones, more conducive to touch or in compact settings where a full deployment of a keyboard and mouse is not feasible. It also consolidates from a dedicated laptop and dedicated tablet, and their own problems of segregation, into one mobile solution.
Windows 8, initially was not an upgrade path by any means for me. Not even upon it's release initially. I was perfectly happy with 7. Given the cheap option, I see no reason not to jump on it. I quickly found things I needed to have done and settled. What really made me shine to it, was the combination with a Surface Pro - and thus realizing that it is where computing devices should be headed to in the end.
It isn't something that can be done right off the bat, given all things considered. From a technical standpoint in previous software and peripherals, to leveraging in redefining a new one (hybrids), to market demands and timely response, Microsoft was at a disadvantage.
Presentation, was never Microsoft's strong point. Even with their perceived lack of a bundled type cover, pricing wise the Surface Pro presents itself as an ultrabook, but looks like a tablet.
Pre-conceived market looks things skin deep and initially scoffed the device. How can you win against this, when a tradeoff was made to less emphasize the keyboard (and a benefit, being replaceable in lieu of a laptop replacement) for a stronger tablet portion and putting the hardware there.
Obviously, the device sparked other ideas from OEMs which is intended. The bigger vision is merging the environments and making them work well together.
But some things of note, Modern Remote desktop cannot file copy or information copy from the session back to the PC used to remote, while the Desktop version can. Eliminate that disparity and both can work well enough together.
If they have different views, why not complain about each windowed application and their changing views and functions.
Adding programs and removing them changes the positions.
Ok, but they do not magically move current tiles in place, nor does the OS re-positions them on their own. Even newly installing a desktop program will not change the current set layout of the Start Screen or make a new tile on the Start Screen (one has to manually pin to the Start screen, from the All Apps/"All Programs" listing). New Modern apps have their tiles added at the end of the Start screen, in the last group that is unnamed.
No, it's not. It is specifically like scrolling a list view of files in Explorer.
It maybe my semantics here, but both are technically menus to a point of presentation. A menu of files to select, or a menu of food options in a restaurant. I apologize if I was being unclear with that quote and it maybe unwanted there.
You may want static menus that can easily take up a static portion of the screen. In some cases, it may not work well, being of which again, a tablet interface. A scrollable menu is desirable here, and it does not hinder the Start screen operation.
Not having Balmer at the helm would be a good start
. It doesn't not get in the way for long: it's in the way every time it has to be used, unless you don't use the taskbar or desktop. Marketing shouldn't have been able to push anything through that didn't get tested by real world users.
And I seldom do use the desktop for application launching. Windows 8 realized this redundancy for me. I also do not have a mess of applications to launch. I do make use of my Taskbar though, but not to the levels of needing many unique programs open all at once.
And how can you test an OS (that its true colors are revealed by the Surface Pro) when development of the houses in Microsoft is out of tune? One thing to blame Balmer for (if it was his fault) was the fierce competition amongst the branches, and no inter working with the divisions.
And how can you test with real world users? They have done so, with the beta, just like 7 did. But at that time, everyone was perfectly happy with 7 and there was not a huge jump to contribute like it was from the Vista to 7 change-over (my perspective). And you cannot really test the OS, without the hardware that really makes the intended goal of Windows 8 shine (Tablet PC users, mainly ones with multitouch - and that is a small base in itself)
Microsoft is in a strange, and uncomfortable position with Windows 8. But hey, I got the Tablet PC I long so desired (swivel hinges, physical thick keyboard docks that cannot be folded back, and thick chassis be damned).
Nor is there a spike in PC sales. PC advertisements have always sucked, though some old AMD ones were at least entertaining.
Because everyone bought notebooks in 7, and 7 is working well enough. It will work well enough for a while.
That is fine. It means that the upgrade cycle will go in every other OS (not necessarily means every OS version sucks, because each introduced good points, Vista being a transitional one from XP due to XP's flaws OEMs have to graduate from).
Windows 8 is disruptive anyways (my opinion, for the better) and it is in part of a knee-jerk reaction (but over time, Windows had tablet functionalities implemented along the way, because of the pen computing thing). But taken to above about divisions not working well together, then it comes together why it has not been a perfect storm like the iPod>iPhone>iPad explosion.
Why keep my Envy 14, at 5 pounds in weight, battery slice included, and the even bigger charger and carry a dedicated tablet that I need to swap files back and forth (cloud or cable otherwise) when I can simply keep on hand one device and work everything in it.
Windows 8 is necessary for that area, but still again needs to keep program compatibility with existing software, corporate or otherwise.
The thing is, the desktop has been what has been behind everything. Now there are other things. If the desktop were changed to be the Modern screen, rather than having both, that would be better than what we have, by miles.
The desktop is in for most people, a launcher for programs. To some a working scratch space. The Start screen separates launching, leaving the desktop to really be a file scratch space and temporary work, and can still be used to launch things.
I mentioned before, the Start screen makes for more cursor drag, due to the default size of the tiles presented and the full screen aspect (on that matter, why not complain about having things like Photoshop or Firefox on full screen).
It goes along with what you mentioned....
A point of unity isn't what's needed: actual unity is. If the Modern UI has a feature of the old UI, it needs to fully replace it, and how it replaces it matters.
The taskbar, the mentions of the "transitions" of the Start screen to desktop and back, there is nothing familiar to keep the transitions from being entirely disruptive. I guess I do not share that similar compulsiveness in complaining and actually working the new layout for the better.
The Start screen works well enough. But I will agree on this...
Today, the Modern UI has 80% of Control Panel, but the missing 20% helps make Windows 8 annoying to deal with--why didn't they up and replace it all, and get rid of the old Control Panel
There are certain window pop-ups that have lingered on since Vista/XP. Dig deep enough and it is there. Things like the device properties for one. How are you to keep all of that relevant in a Modern setting, while still be manipulative on the desktop setting to view other windows as well (because for sure, the Modern app snap functionality can't hep there).
Windows 8's greatest strength, in having current capability ushering a new usability form and program compatibility, is a double edge sword.
There's also the problem that the taskbar as systray in 7 and older, always visible, gave useful context information, and that information displayed was also used for controlling what it displayed info about, and that's missing.
The notification area is still there for me. You can control what things are always on in the taskbar or being revealed by the ^ on the taskbar.
Try to click an informational icon, and it just goes away--yeah, that's a great UI decision.
Disappears upon clicking on it, yes that is true. Clicking on the flag will show stored notifications. Should be a linger option after clicking. But that does not fault any of my experiences with Windows so far (because these notifications usually let me if something is awry, most of the time I have not had the problem).
Also, it was never reliable, in terms of having what you wanted (it will miss files, I'm guessing based on what calls were used to open them). It was a good idea, but I think not being able to have implemented it from scratch with the OS' APIs made it doomed to go away, as neither the UI, nor the recent list itself, could be made sufficiently comprehensive, and would either miss things, not show up at all, or be too cluttered to be useful. I've wanted to like it for years, but...
I still would like that feature though. I can live with each third party program having their own "recently opened" file list though.
The desktop more or less is used the same way
I have not used the desktop for placing recent working files. Best I made use of it, is from scratch creation of a bitmap image, notepad, or a temporary file paste storing and placement.
Which is a good thing?
One of them needs to go away, in some way, else have desktop/tablet/ten-foot profiles (probably the worst thing to do, but definitely the easiest).
My point with the Surface Pro (and other hybrids, and other desktop software) would make this not as easily possible. Making a separate OS for a separate tablet device, when I want only one (power and ability of a laptop and a tablet, with as little physical hardware as possible) is not feasible.
To have that work across the board? That is asking for a tablet edition all over again. Perhaps is that what you want? But I mentioned why I have liked the Start screen, using a mouse. Start menu launching is something that I grown out of.
But, if the desktop goes away, the Modern's version needs to usurp some of its better qualities, including good font rendering, and out of the box icons either stock or available that aren't flat.
This is a matter of taste. One thing I would point though, I would like to change the color of the tile's background.
If they got rid of the flat look, or allowed skinning, again, I wouldn't mind having only the new start screen.
Slowly, I seen from 8 to 8.1, there is more customization options. A bit more in Modern scaling options (two doesn't really cut it in some cases for information density), and if Modern apps can be individually set to open by default to windowed mode (or have an option in the charms bar to switch the app to a windowed mode on the desktop), that would be nice - and would encourage some app use on my desktop PC.
The charms bar in itself, depends on what app you have clicked your mouse in last when you activate the charms bar. I know you mentioned your loathing of context sensitive menus, but it works in a tablet PC space. It is just as doable in the desktop space, but only applies to apps (which I am not running much to none at all in that area). So this point does not matter much at the moment.
Like the start menu, if that's what was going to be there, MS would have to make minor tweaks over time to make it work better. Having both UI paradigms coexisting based on app context is far worse than deciding one needs to be deprecated, and making the new one have some compatibility code behind it on the full/x86 OS versions.
I rather not eliminate options, when the said combined options allow me to fully have a mobile PC option to begin with, while maintaining the space of the current PC before, software programs and hardware performance in the mix.
Take the XP new start menu: tooltips would cover up buttons, it didn't have the nice search, didn't have the recent break-out, and all programs gave you the same big 2D menu, or evil personalized menu, as not using it. They allowed two options for one version, then after tweaking the new one, ditched the old one. That is the right way to do it.
But it is no longer a single cursor periphery standpoint now. You are dealing with multiple input options, and more so on the go. And how can this be tested over time? It is right now.
The problem is that Microsoft is bad at presenting why this is a good idea. But when you have things like the Surface Pro (Surface RT/2 devices are the sole tablet devices you want Windows 8 to be, but I disagree because of the hardware and software compatibility and still want the mobile PC aspect).
They are also bad at presenting why I mentioned the entire sparked debate in the Start screen decision and lack of a Start menu. Also bad at presenting that the desktop is still there, thus upsetting some familiar users around. It is also bad when some people notice that certain devices have touch capability and others do not.
I am not saying the general consumer is lacking in perception, recognition, and flexibility, but most are sadly. It would benefit if the Start menu was not removed initially, and the presentation was offered in a tutorial video (I think Windows 95 had this). A new interface that drastic would need "hand-holding" for those that are not willing to play and discover these things.
Wasn't it a mention that someone actually liked an OS giving them challenges? If playing around to discover, and make good use of these changes isn't a challenge, then I do not know what is. It is even more of a challenge to go into the Android and Linux land, and that only covers UI concerns, never mind finding all third party programs as replacements.
Not switching between them based on what you're doing, but selecting one, with a nice hint that the new one will be your only option, once they get the kinks worked out.
A viable option, this might get some real world testing in that regard. But that testing should have been taken care of in the beta, of which I mentioned why no one gave any dime about it (in my opinion). It would present of a "testing" of the Start Screen versus Menu option and provide feedback, along with bug feedback.
But at the same time, this cannot have a large sample size, due in part of the hybrid/Tablet PC in it's new iteration not being presented at all during the time. In other words, there is no real way to really test the interface to the open end user standpoint.
It hasn't been reliable even for that for a few years. Up through ~2009, it was somewhat useful, but there is such a wide range of hardware performance running current OSes, that you have to know enough of what you're looking at that there's not a real advantage over 3rd party programs. Plus, people got worried over WEI scores that were well above the point where it usefully measured. Like the recent docs and places, I wouldn't say good riddance, but I also agree with removing it. They could keep it relevant, but it would be a lot of work for very little gain.
A possible solution to keeping WEI, is to change the scale every X years. The highest scale always is increasing, but when your hardware from 2009 is reporting the highest scale, then why would the next one up report the same thing? The X years part can have a scale that is set relevant to the current Windows OS performance scaling. (a 7.9 under Windows Vista, is not the same as a 7.9 under Windows 7, and it is not the same under Windows 8).
The two metric criteria would set things on what programs would perform and what OS to have it under for a baseline. As what WEI was situated before, there was not a discrete listing or text saying that your previous WEI maybe decreased under a new Windows OS or saying that WEI applies to this current Windows version.
This would also solve the question as "can I run that" for not just games, but for other software too. Many forum users I noticed, have questions on whether or not can they run this and that. It is going to be even more relevant now with Bay Trail tablets and their initial memory loadouts.
If anyone reads this conversation up to this point, I fully appreciate it. You may disgree with some, but I am bringing reasons why I overall appreciate the change (mostly satisfied Surface Pro 2 user, with a Logitech M570 Trackball in tow).
And thank you Cerb, for not defaulting to what other users would have, in mindlessly retorting blind hate. You have stated valid opinions and this is the feedback Microsoft would have wanted in the beta, but they went with what they had. (and I have not partake in the beta of 8 either, so I am too at fault for not helping to making things better)
Facebook
Twitter