I really hope this "Metro Look" doesn't catch on

Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by 88keys, Jan 5, 2013.

  1. lxskllr

    lxskllr Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    44,687
    Likes Received:
    93
    A big reason why I left Ubuntu was their aping of Apple ui elements. Add to that they can't be easily changed, and I don't see the point. Sure, I could hack around them, and did for a little while, but why should I use an O/S or interface that's hostile to my wishes. That's a never ending fight I shouldn't have to deal with.
     
  2. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm betting they made some of the base decisions on avoiding a lawsuit from Apple and Google, otherwise they probably would've just stuck with the same icon-esque look they did. But I think some of what metro does is innovative with the live tiles and such, it's sort of like a combination of widgets and icons and has the potential to be hugely useful.

    MS breaks their own usability guidelines all of the time, there's nothing new about that. Just look at WMP, VS, Office, etc for the most egregious examples.

    History disagrees with you. Despite all of the whining and gnashing of teeth the majority of their users put up with it despite the number and progress of alternatives because they feel they need Windows.

    How did MS backtrack on WinME? Last I checked they left all of the bad pieces in place and just did normal updates and security patches. MS didn't backtrack on any of the others either except for maybe Bob, the rest they just left die and moved on to something new. WinMo 6.x was later replaced with what we have now with Windows Phone, but there was no backtracking in an attempt to fix it, they just replaced it years later after the smartphone market got better defined by Apple and then Google.

    MS has enough recurring revenue and cash to keep them afloat amidst failed products for decades. They're not going away any time soon despite where Balmer's failed leadership may take them. If someone with such a cult following as Apple hasn't made a significant dent in their marketshare after dominating several auxiliary markets for this long it's not going to happen any time soon.
     
  3. Kirel_Redhand

    Kirel_Redhand Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    The company I work for has abandoned it's win7 upgrade and is starting a win8 upgrade. My team manages tools and we've been having to run tests on win8, using our current toolset.

    My opinion after several weeks of testing various development tools on a win8 machine?

    I hate it. MS is forcing their vision of "surface" type tablet/touchscreen interaction onto the desktop and it and it kills multitasking and productivity on normal desktops.
     
  4. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,793
    Likes Received:
    33
    If so, that's pathetic and stupid on multiple levels. (On MS's part). It's not like MS never made an OS before. Neither Apple nor Google own the right to dictate all UI design. It would also be part of a lame-brained corporate mentality that's projecting a hoop-dream of wanting to be a leader in the mobile OS space, onto a desktop OS as if they were the same thing. (IE: in REALITY, Windows does not compete directly with iOS or Android, nor should it ever be dumbed down to the point where it does.)

    If they're incapable of hiring developers and designers that can't think beyond: "We've either got to copy this over here and do a shoddy half-assed 'me too' version of it... OR.. stick with what's going to be outdated... then again, they will eventually fail. Like I said, not overnight, but eventually. I reject this attitude of "the only possible options are one form of suck or another" because it's just laziness. MS isn't some little mom and pop operation. They CAN afford to pay for actual skill that's capable of keeping up with the modern world. If not... step aside.

    This was addressed directly in the video someone posted earlier. Their own guidelines aren't the problem- it's established industry wide guidelines, and for NO GOOD REASON. Guidelines can be broken effectively when you're doing something that people can easily see is an improvement on the old. MS hasn't done that. Frankly, the team that came up with Metro isn't capable of that. It's just breaking guidelines for the sake of breaking guidelines and hoping that it'll be seen as 'innovative'. Doesn't fly with everyone.



    The majority put up with Windows because they need to use Windows APPLICATIONS. Windows itself doesn't mean that much to most people.

    Record numbers of people DID NOT put up with Vista and ME and demanded better OS's like XP and 7. The progress of 'alternatives' means bumkiss to a lot of people if there's no way to run the apps people need. (IE: Adobe not some Kcrap, or Autodesk, not Gcrud.)

    If another option came along with widespread (native) commercial application support and that option was better than Windows or OSX, then it could easily become a player. I for one, hope it does happen, because more options is better.

    You totally missed the point on this. By backtrack- it means they didn't -as you're claiming- just stick with their failed ideas and keep forcing them on people in the next versions they did. The poor sales (and yes, those OSes did have poor sales compared to the ones that were better) and rejection by business users and others forced them to go back to the drawing board and put out a better product, not just go "You'll use Windows ME 2 and LIKE IT, and here's VISTA 2, suck on it!" They absolutely didn't do that. Making Windows 9 into Windows 8 Part 2 won't work either.



    Sorry, but the history of corporations of littered with the corpses of giants that believed this. I don't predict MS's total destruction should they continue on a path of "screw the consumer, we'll do what we want and you'll like it" but I see them marginalizing themselves and becoming more like IBM (a shell of what it once was as far as being a power player in the industry) HP, or any number of companies that were once dominant and now are "Just another bit player." It can happen to MS as well. Hopefully before it ever gets to that that point, it'll just lead to what needs desperately to happen: Ballmer's ouster, and some fresh leadership taking the helm, bringing in a higher calibre of talent and setting a better course for the company.
     
    #79 Zaap, Jan 18, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  5. lakedude

    lakedude Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly correct.

    That and the learning curve it takes to switch over to an alternate OS.

    Linux has an incredible number of apps and if people would just take the time to get over the learning curve they would never go back to Windows (especially W8) for normal usages.

    Specialized apps, games and compatibility are really the only reasons to use Windows.

    Metro should be an option on first boot. The end user should be able to pick between the normal desktop and Metro without needing a 3rd party application. Edge Swipe should be easily disabled or automatically disabled for touch-pad users.
     
  6. nerp

    nerp Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    9,643
    Likes Received:
    43
    People bitched about no more MS-DOS versions after 6.22 and that they'd always prefer commandline DOS. We see how that shook out. Enjoy your 4MB ram.
     
  7. ControlD

    ControlD Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    14
    True, Linux is a wonderful operating system (I am hapilly typing this on my Linux machine right now). However, the ace in the hole that MS has is that nearly all of the business world runs on Windows. MS can piss off all of the home users it wants to and it isn't going to change the fact that business needs Windows. Perhaps if businesses are reticent to adopt Windows 8 (or more likely some successor to it, most businesses are just getting around to Windows 7) then Microsoft will be forced to make some UI changes. I see that as the only way that a forced change back to the traditional UI is going to happen. Right now home users are the guinea pigs for MS. By the time the business world needs to upgrade I imagine a lot of the rough edges will have been ironed out.
     
  8. darkewaffle

    darkewaffle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Used Win8 for the first time this weekend. The faux outrage over "modern" is silly. Took me all of a few minutes to get accustomed to how things are organized and what the corners do/how to find what I want; it's different, but all the same it's still fairly logical imo. The system booting to modern is the equivalent of starting Windows desktop with the start menu opened.

    All the same I still just use it in desktop, but I don't consider it a nuisance at all. Actually I find the "search" capability to be really well executed and fast, which is essentially the only thing I ever use the Start menu for anymore anyway. To me it's just a 'library' of 'stuff' on the PC, used to access the things I rarely need but still want around (alternative browsers, codec settings). Everything regular gets a shortcut (or a tile).

    I wish you could get some more control over the modern UI, I haven't played with it extensively but it seems like you can only make tiles be a 1x1 or 2x1.

    I think "apps" themselves are more of an issue than anything else. I dislike how they tend to ignore not only user interface conventions but interfaces altogether because they're intended to be 'single tasked', and (I think) managed by the system instead of the user.
     
  9. cboath

    cboath Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with pretty much all of that. Especially the apps part.

    The only reason I can come up with for the apps working as they do is that they're soley designed for tablet use. On a tablet, I can see some merit it limiting apps to two on the screen at once. Developers have to be able to target a set amount of screen/resolution, andif you tile 2 max, you've got a reasonable min to work with. Tile 4 or 8, and the amount of space becomes too little to do anything. A bigger question is why can the apps not float instead of tile only? Resources? Complexity? Appearance? I don't have that answer.

    On a tablet or phone, this isn't that big of an issue. On a desktop - it is. The only rationale I can come up with is that they want it to work the same on all devices (worthy goal). If you want to use your desktop as an internet device only, sure it'll work fine, gaming too. For real production work it fails because frequently you need many things open and accessible at once for what you're doing. I suppose their answer is you can tile 1 app at 20% of your screen and give the desktop 80%. I tried it and it doesn't work for me. However, like you, i don't deal with metro/modern too often on a desktop. I stay in the desktop. The one thing i'd like to add and just haven't gotten around to figuring out how to do it is to add an icon to the taskbar that launches the run box. I don't need icons for things like notepad, calculator, regedit, etc. They're aren't used enough. Even in W7, i just used the search box and typed them in as it was the fastest route.

    Back to the main point, though, the modern UI stuff is on the desktop to present a unified presence among all devices. I get that. I don't mind it on the desktop, but I can state it works loads better on a tablet.

    I got a surface for xmas. Right out of the box I noticed the syncing with the internet based login worked really really well. My login wallpaper, start screen wallpaper,and desktop wallpaper all matched my desktop, and they few internet explorer shortcuts i had (and history too i think) were all right there after the intial setup. The touch stuff works very well. I don't like the metro IE on the desktop, but it's great on the tablet. The thing that threw me though was that the gestures are sort of backwards to the mouse ones on the desktop. On the desktop, I move my cursor to the bottom right corner and the charms bar comes out. On the tablet, i have to start outside the screen on the bottom right and move inwards to get the bar. The one that was the hardest to figure out was closing an app. You move your cursor (in either) to the top center of the app and you get the hand that you're supposed to click and drag to the bottom to close the app. In the tablet, you still get the hand but you can't click and drag it. You have to start on the top frame and drag down. Once you get those down, it's a very easy touch setup to use. It's even integrated into the desktop rather well, too.

    People said this was designed for tablets and phones and that appears to be dead on. I think it works very well there. I dont' have a problem with how it works on the desktop mind you. But i think a few simple tweaks could make it much better on the desktop.
     
  10. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Developers have dealt with various resolutions, dpi, etc and completely arbitrary window sizes for the past 3 decades or so, why must they only have to target a few specified ones now? If I have the resolution and screen real estate why shouldn't I have the option to view as many tiles/windows as I want? The only reason it was like that before was because phones weren't powerful enough to multitask (and the ones that were had artificial limitations placed on them by Apple to not allow it) but that hasn't been the case for several years now.

    On a small screen like a 7" tablet I don't think I would want any more than 2, but I still don't see the point in arbitrarily limiting people that may have good enough eyes to want a 4-way or more split.

    But that's something MS probably won't be addressing until the next major release of Windows.

    I think this is where most rational people will settle. It works well enough for a first release, but it needs a decent amount of work if MS expects it to stick around long term.
     
  11. ultimatebob

    ultimatebob Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,765
    Likes Received:
    12
    At least Vista had the ability to turn off all of the irritating eye candy and go back to a Windows XP like interface if you wanted to.

    Windows 8 is forcing users to install third-party software to do this, and you know damn well that they'll break those software hacks when the service pack comes out.
     
  12. ultimatebob

    ultimatebob Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,765
    Likes Received:
    12
    Microsoft has a hell of a lot more competition in the operating system space than it did in 1995. Even so, I'll bet that at least a few thousand of those hard core DOS command line people are Linux users now.

    Honestly, I'm surprised that Apple, Google, and Canonical aren't exploiting this "Windows 8 rage" more than they are.
     
  13. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    More how? Google is heavily pushing tablets and the Chromebook, Canonical is working on Ubuntu for phones that docs and becomes a full Linux workstation and Apple is just Apple.

    The main thing keeping people on Windows is simply the fact that it's Windows, there's nothing any other company can do about that. Change is scary and as long as people have a single reason to choose Windows (e.g. games and Office) they'll keep doing so regardless of how MS changes up the UI.
     
  14. Mem

    Mem Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2000
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1

    The old style Start button menu has been around since Win95 so almost 20 years old,personally I don't miss it or even think you need it.

    Looks like even Microsoft agree and are not going to bring it back even in next the Windows OS.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+Note+Start+Button+to+Stay+Dead+in+Windows+Blue/article29511.htm

    I'm glad Metro is going to get improvements which is what I expected from their next OS,I'm not surprised the old style start button is going way of the dodo.


    End of the day you have plenty of choices ie try and use Windows like Microsoft want you too or use a different OS,you can also use a third party mod so not hard really.
     
    #89 Mem, Jan 23, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  15. Scooby Doo

    Scooby Doo Senior member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    1
    LOL... That's where my taskbar is... :biggrin:
     
  16. debian0001

    debian0001 Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just wait til Windows 9 comes out.
     
  17. cboath

    cboath Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    As someone who was formerly in support, one of the issues with using whatever resolution you want is that invariably, some one will design an app or dialog or whatever that doesn't play well. When that happens the OS makers takes flack for something completely not their fault. There were programs we dealt with that required 800 vertical resolution. Doesn't seem that bad until you realize that even today, many laptops come standard with 768. 32 pixels doesnt' seem like a lot, but it tended to put all the buttons (OK, NEXT, BACK, CANCEL, etc) below the screen where they weren't visible or accessible. It's amazing how many people have no clue what resolution they're running, or for that matter, what resolution even is.

    The minimum resolution two tiled apps in metro is what? 1368x768? 20% of that is 342x768. I'd imagine it's hard to be usable below that. I think one of the issues that Microsoft has here isn't so much that the limit is 2, but rather that like most things with Win8, all we're told is 'this is what it is'. For instance, we're told the max number of apps on screen is 2, but nowhere do they explain why it's two. I think those answers would go a long way towards understanding. It may not be the way we're used to switching between apps, but you can still swap between open, active, and running apps using the dock bar or whatever they call it on the left side of the screen. I may work with 5-6 open windows on my screen, but 99% of the time only one app is totally visible and the othes are edges of windows i can easily click on to bring to the front when necessary. In that regard, the metro solution isn't really any different really. Again, though, we're not being told their rationale behind much.

    The only thing they've explained is that they ditched the start button because research showed it wasn't used very much. Whether you believe it or not is another question, but i know that i rarely use it. I only miss the run/search box really.
     
  18. yinan

    yinan Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am never, ever using any OS newer than Windows 7 it looks like. All of the new UI changes just make it ugly, hard to use, and not productive.

    I actually thought about switching to Linux last night. I might actually do it.
     
  19. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,793
    Likes Received:
    33
    If there's no specific applications you need for your work that limit you to Windows, then really, why wouldn't you give it a shot?
    Personally, I find Linux can break at the drop of a hat and has far too many limitations to be effective as a desktop OS (no support for apps I need being the #1, buggy arcaneness #2), but that's just for my needs. Probably a lot of people can get by with it that otherwise put up with MS's crap for no other reason than it's what they know.

    Plus Linux is easy to try pain free; boot it from a USB key, or live CD, or just install it alongside Windows or an extra hard drive.
     
  20. dighn

    dighn Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    22,818
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've tried Linux a few times but have come back to Windows every time due to superior application and game support. But if MS continues on this path of pushing reduced functionality Metro apps and marginalizing the Desktop "mode", I'll be trying very hard to get used to the Linux alternatives.
     
  21. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've seen my share of apps that don't deal well with really low resolutions or non-standard DPI settings, but they are the exception and we shouldn't let the worst developers set the rules. Good developers should be allowed that flexibility and the bad ones should learn from those mistakes.

    I've generally found the free apps that come with Linux distributions to be much higher quality than the stuff available for Windows, except in the cases where the free app was ported to Windows. Most of the time it's just a case of getting used to the slightly different way of looking at things like app installation, updates, filesystem hierarchy, etc. Games are another story though, if you want PC games you're stuck with Windows regardless. You can use WINE to run some of them, but it's pretty hit or miss.
     
  22. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,793
    Likes Received:
    33
    I haven't found free Linux apps to be of any higher quality than the best of Windows shareware/freeware. Usually at best it's about the same quality.

    And of course if all one had to use was free apps, then sure, Linux is fine. High quality commercial software on the other hand...
     
  23. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been using Linux on my personal desktop for over a decade and things like gkrellm, screen, guake, etc are indispensable to me now and I don't believe there's any real equivalents to them on Windows. Even apps that have ports like pidgin, vim, etc just don't feel right on Windows because GTK is a second-class citizen on Windows.

    Commercial software is a whole other arena and I would say there's very few commercial apps that I would consider high quality all around. I do use VMware Workstation on Linux because it's better than the alternatives right now, but I expect to be able to get by with KVM at some point. But most commercial software is just plain crap, even more so if they tack on buzzwords like enterprise.

    I'm sure I'm biased, but after being spoiled by the package management on Linux I just hate dealing with software on Windows. From shitty installers that try to sneak extra software onto your machine to uninstallers that just plain don't work it's a crap experience from end to end.

    But if you're happy with it, that's what matters. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
     
  24. SandEagle

    SandEagle Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    16,817
    Likes Received:
    1
    can't believe that metro crap made it to Server 2012 and SP 2013. :hmm:
     
  25. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,793
    Likes Received:
    33
    Total difference of outlook. None of your examples are important application types to me. My outlook on computing (and many other people) is that a computer is a tool for creating other things that will exist out in the real world, NOT just something I need tools for just for the computer itself. So system monitors, command lines, etc... those are mostly just things for dickering with the computer itself. To me that's a distraction, not a task in and of itself. So my focus isn't on freebies for dickering around with the computer itself (although I like those things at times, because I do love computers and tech) but on tools to do work, that pays me a nice living IE: commercial software.

    This is just such a silly blanket statement. It's like me saying, "I ride a bike, so all automobiles are just plain crap." No. That's not even remotely true. There are amazing software developers who make awesome programs, and there are crap ones, but a blanket statement declaring an entire field as crap is just pure fallacy.

    What commercial software have you actually used? Show me some freebie Gcrud equivalent to Toon Boom Storyboard or Animate. Or for Maya (which actually has a Linux version) or SketchBook Pro. For AfterFX or Illustrator or even Flash. No, Gimp can't hold a candle to Photoshop, not on any day of the week, and there's no reputable studio, business or even relevant freelancer that would try to permanently substitute the two to any great effect. Show me the Kcrap equivalent to Lightroom or Aperture.

    Final Cut Pro is such great software it's paid for my house, my cars, my entire life for the past 10 years. There absolutely is NOT any freebie POS that comes anywhere close, and those that think so don't actually work in a professional setting, dealing with projects and files created by other professionals. Even Premiere and Vegas are far superior to any wanna-be freebie garbage that can't even come close.

    Any of course my focus is just on graphics and video applications which is what I do. Pick any industry/profession that uses commercial software and you'll find plenty of it that's stellar and that people that use it swear by.

    Examples? I don't even know of any 'enterprise' versions of any of the commercial software I use. Sounds like a buzz word that gets under your skin, but how about some examples of how this makes anything suck?

    It's true that Windows could handle software install/uninstall better. These are the types of things that MS should have focused on -actual useful, practical stuff- rather than their wanna-be iPad already-behind-the-curve hoop-dream.

    Linux does have a nice package management system, but let's not kid ourselves, it also still has way too many outdated dependency issues. Many's the time when I've gone to install something on Linux and it gives me a list of dependancies it needs to update at the same time- which would be fine, except for I've had those things then break something else on the system. I put up with Linux long enough before I realized life is just too short. If my focus was mostly on dickering with the computer itself with my goal being "use a computer just to be using a computer" then I'd probably continue to put up with Linux. But since my focus is: "Use applications that do work that pays my bills and provides for my family" I've commuted my own sentence with Linux and freed myself to use better more polished stuff that gets my work done.

    Although I do admire Linux's kind of seat-of-the-pants approach, and I've said before, I wish it would get more commercial support and be an actual alternative to Windows and OSX, which in turn would drive those two to progress faster. To some extent it's happening, such as with major software like Maya having a Linux version, but all too often the big-guns of the industry are Windows and Mac only. (Often just Windows only)

    No need for any disagreement, it's just different computing needs.
     
Loading...