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

[CSMR]

News sites have just listed Metro improvements. Fine but only really relevant for the tablet market.

I'd prefer to know about desktop and core OS improvements.

 

[Mem]

News sites have just listed Metro improvements. Fine but only really relevant for the tablet market.

I'd prefer to know about desktop and core OS improvements.

Probably find out later details on any desktop improvements if any,we can only really say Microsoft is pushing for the tablet market hard and taking it very seriously.


You can also argue when you go hybrid OS "jack of all trades" ,some things you will find some users won't be happy with.

 

[N4g4rok]

You can also argue when you go hybrid OS "jack of all trades" ,some things you will find some users won't be happy with.

And it might end up that you never do any one thing particularly well. At the rate they're going, Microsoft might not get more then a begrudging indifference during the life of Windows 8/blue/etc. Hopefully, they find a better way to accommodate the full range of users. One that preferably doesn't rely on third party solutions.

 

[Mem]

And it might end up that you never do any one thing particularly well. At the rate they're going, Microsoft might not get more then a begrudging indifference during the life of Windows 8/blue/etc. Hopefully, they find a better way to accommodate the full range of users. One that preferably doesn't rely on third party solutions.

Nothing surprises me with Microsoft, I take each new OS one step at a time and try to deal with it,end of the day there's always going to be something new different down the road from them sooner or later.

 

[hclarkjr]

Hehe... maybe Win8 SE,now where have I heard that before .

and the winner is.... windows 8.1 http://news.softpedia.com/news/Insi...Blue-Might-Be-Called-Windows-8-1-342299.shtml

 

[Mem]

and the winner is.... windows 8.1 http://news.softpedia.com/news/Insi...Blue-Might-Be-Called-Windows-8-1-342299.shtml

I think mine sounds better .

 

[Imaginer]

If they improve the Modern PC settings screen, they have all the scrolling and swiping room to add more options, basic to advanced for touchscreen devices. Changing the time, for example, only allows for changing the time zone and doing anything else means going to the desktop.

More tabs in Modern IE than just 10. I believe they can have the top pulldown area for the tabs made so you can swipe scroll through all of them or be set to show a text listing. You can also pinch that drop down area to zoom out your total tabs much like the start screen

Manual scaling adjustments for all the aspects of the desktop. Fixing it to just 125 and 150 is getting by but some things even with the adjustment feels the need to be a bit larger.

Options for a right click. Other than just holding down with a finger, have it set to where you can also tap a second finger after placing the intended first finger to perform a right click.

Bring touch pointer to the desktop in similar fashion how the desktop is controlled remotely in their Modern Remote desktop. That was a very nice feature present in ConnectMe as well.

At least more than two equal window sections for multi Modern/desktop displaying the apps, make it so the screen can be split four ways and can be set at different sizes, thus adding more open programs you can see. And it will fit true to their new windows logo. Making it work with multiple monitors so it doesn't disappear if the mouse cursor moves to a different monitor and have it set so each monitor can have a unique set of shown applications you can open.

Change the positions of the forward and backslashes buttons in the split onscreen keyboard. Also for tablet PCs and tablets in desktop, have an option to set it to trigger without pressing the keyboard icon on the taskbar.

Have options to label your pinned start screen groups. Doesn't need to prompt on making a new one, just have an area or an option with the bottom swipe bar to name said groupings.

Have options to allow the start screen to scroll vertically to show more instead of just horizontally. Though this isn't necessary. It is asking for a dynamic zoom in desktop mode with the four finger pinch or hokey + scroll wheel.

But who the hey that can do anything about it will experiment and maybe refine and implement these things. Here's hoping this crawls along the net.

 

[bshole]

I am just waiting for the day when MS makes the OS subscription based and I shiver with intense fear and dread. I do not and never have wanted to RENT software (aside from WOW), I want to OWN it.

 

[hclarkjr]

I am just waiting for the day when MS makes the OS subscription based and I shiver with intense fear and dread. I do not and never have wanted to RENT software (aside from WOW), I want to OWN it.

you do not really own windows now anyhow. read the liscense agreement

 

[Imaginer]

I am just waiting for the day when MS makes the OS subscription based and I shiver with intense fear and dread. I do not and never have wanted to RENT software (aside from WOW), I want to OWN it.

Pretty much we are leasing anyways with paid major versions and upgrades. Would love to buy a copy of Windows 98 back then and get any new version for free there after. Same with other software.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Some Microsoft options have always been removed especially unimportant ones like Aero which is only eye candy at best and nothing more unless you count battery hog etc...


For every person I've read that wants Aero ,there is somebody that does not want it,problem is if you install all "people's options" the OS becomes bloated.

End of the day you can't please everybody.

Btw if I was still hung on the past with options etc... I would want DOS included in Windows but hey its not going to happen.

But don't you want to be able to have open more than one program at a time and have overlapping windows?

 

[Mem]

But don't you want to be able to have open more than one program at a time and have overlapping windows?

Like this?....

http://www.gcflearnfree.org/windows8/7.4

 

[Imaginer]

But don't you want to be able to have open more than one program at a time and have overlapping windows?

Not necessary between the taskbar in switching active windows and the Modern taskbar in switching applications. I don't think I ever made use of overlapping windowing in years.

If I have an inactive window and want to see it's contents alongside an active window, chances are I will switch the inactive to be active and try to fudge the view to be what I want to see when I go ask to my previous active window... but that was a solution back when I didn't have monitor space. With 1080+ display options (even 720 is fine to an extent) I feel no need to have overlapping windows and would prefer windows side by side so both show what I need. With multiple monitors, overlapping windows just seems outdated.

 

[Imaginer]

Like this?....

http://www.gcflearnfree.org/windows8/7.4

Yes like that, only necessary with limited real estate screens with multiple programs to display, but you still are defeating the purpose by obscuring most inactive windows' content.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Like this?....

http://www.gcflearnfree.org/windows8/7.4

But for how long, the direction Windows is going is to make that environment the deprecated environment and everything be WinRT/MetroUI environment.

Notice how the new APIs do not offer windowing. Eventually Windows will be a tablet experience only on desktops.

 

[Mem]

Yes like that, only necessary with limited real estate screens with multiple programs to display, but you still are defeating the purpose by obscuring most inactive windows' content.

Well that is Win8 screenshot so it does cover best of both worlds so to speak,personally I don't have multiple Windows up like that normally.

 

[bshole]

I have a dual monitor setup for work with Windows 7. On one monitor I have the software requirements in WORD. On the other monitor I have the software editor (CodeWright). Could you do this with Windows Blue w/o switching to desktop? I ASSUME MS is going to kill the desktop. We are going through the transition stage right now.

From what I have heard is hard to imagine using Blue in an engineering environment. It is very difficult to think of CAD as an "APP", etc....

 

[Imaginer]

I have a dual monitor setup for work with Windows 7. On one monitor I have the software requirements in WORD. On the other monitor I have the software editor (CodeWright). Could you do this with Windows Blue w/o switching to desktop? I ASSUME MS is going to kill the desktop. We are going through the transition stage right now.

From what I have heard is hard to imagine using Blue in an engineering environment. It is very difficult to think of CAD as an "APP", etc....

Never I have heard the desktop environment is going away in 8. You can still multi monitor (and I have done so) in 8. You can not currently multi monitor two Modern applications separately in each monitor. However, you can have one monitor show all the Modern apps and the rest of the monitors show the normal desktop environment. Or have all be at the regular desktop environment.

 

[Imaginer]

From what I have heard is hard to imagine using Blue in an engineering environment. It is very difficult to think of CAD as an "APP", etc....

No, but there are still given options for traditional pointing and command typing on keyboard's when you want it to. I don't expect this to change unless a more efficient paradigm was conceived for CADing. Hell, I keep my trackball and type cover on hand for such a need. (and I expect the true strength of Windows 8 lies in good well designed convertibles)

I wish Intel's HD4000 would play with Mudbox as it would be interesting to have a pen option.

 

[Cerb]

Manual scaling adjustments for all the aspects of the desktop. Fixing it to just 125 and 150 is getting by but some things even with the adjustment feels the need to be a bit larger.

By at least 33%. Does Microsoft not have any old people in any of their test groups? The DPI scaling in 7, affecting pretty much everything, and going high (like 200%), helped allow me to wrest aged XP boxes from myopic seniors . That's something I hadn't messed with in 8, but man, if they regressed on that too, WTF...

For me, until they merge the UIs, they can keep it. I'm OK with change, and having the "Modern UI" there for touch-friendly applications (in itself, I think that's a good idea), but having a "Modern UI" world and a "legacy" world sucks the big one, and was a shitty decision. I don't care if I can, "get back to the desktop," with 20 minutes of following guides--I need to be able to work with the two together, or I'm going to wait until they get forced to have some sense (Windows 9? 10? ). Personally, I think it would be ideal to mix and match by application, and while it may be a technical hurdle now, it was a stupid management decision to make it that way to begin with.

Also, what's with all the killing Aero talk? Windows 8's desktop UI has all the features from Aero, AFAIK. It looks ugly, but peek, snap, and shake are still there. What is missing, aside from the start menu (just after I had come to like it!)?

 

[Imaginer]

By at least 33%. Does Microsoft not have any old people in any of their test groups? The DPI scaling in 7, affecting pretty much everything, and going high (like 200%), helped allow me to wrest aged XP boxes from myopic seniors . That's something I hadn't messed with in 8, but man, if they regressed on that too, WTF...

You can still input custom percentage scaling. And come think of it, it requires work but you can possibly adjust scaling for everything major. Set the overall percentage and adjust the elements with the option under custom sizing options.

Magnifier, I would like to be pinched and zoom an panned naturally with the fingers. It is cumbersome at the moment, but the groundwork is there.

 

[Imaginer]

For me, until they merge the UIs, they can keep it. I'm OK with change, and having the "Modern UI" there for touch-friendly applications (in itself, I think that's a good idea), but having a "Modern UI" world and a "legacy" world sucks the big one, and was a shitty decision.

Merging would potentially break some third party program's UI. The only reason why I can't set scaling at 150% is due to some programs being completely off by it and games are cropped in their full screen or even fixed window showing. Cave Story for Steam and AutoCAD being two examples.

 

[Imaginer]

And speaking of Steam, their interface for TV can be a solution had if they just allowed their text and button elements to be customer scaled, having a controller as a mouse. But what do they do? Make a 'in my opinion' cumbersome interface that can rival complaints about hiding elements like what Microsoft did with the charms bar, Modern taskbar, etc. Problem is with Steam, they force you to go up and down through the levels of hierarchal big picture UI.

And they are one of the programs out there that DOES NOT comply with transitioning to finger scrolling. And it is a pain to use their tiny scrollbars.

 

[Cerb]

Merging would potentially break some third party program's UI. The only reason why I can't set scaling at 150% is due to some programs being completely off by it and games are cropped in their full screen or even fixed window showing. Cave Story for Steam and AutoCAD being two examples.

And, that's part of the rub--it may be too late. Of all companies, Microsoft should have had people that knew better, and would say something about it (I suspect they have a corporate culture that either compartmentalizes them too much for that to happen as often as it should, or that makes speaking up a career risk).

Metro should have been made from the start to inter-operate fully (with some caveats, like clipboard behavior) with the regular desktop UI and "legacy" programs, by way of user-adjustable window size (which are only just getting added--nice divisible screen-size chunks would be fine), separating the visible monitor space(s) into Metro (tiling) and desktop (overlapping WIMP) slices (dynamically, by resizing the Metro apps, with memory in between uses), and having a distinct compatibility layer (no incestuous code, and WinRT wouldn't get it). The arbitrary resizing from the start would have also made responsive UI design mandatory to get and keep users, too, for any and all metro app devs :twisted:.

While it was being developed, the above would not have been hard to do, but if the APIs don't cooperate, it may be difficult or impossible after-the-fact. Something like the above would have made the new UI, and programs associated with it, pure added value: if you could make use of them as touch/remote apps, great; if not, you still wouldn't have to worry about trying to get them out of your way, as the only difference would be getting used to tiling windows (easy enough, especially with the applications being made for it).

Given the importance of compatibility to MS' user base, especially their business customers, it's mind-boggling to me that they implemented it the way that they did. Add to that removing subpixel rendering, instead of making it better, and not allowing WinRT on domains ("What would be a good way to get back some phone or tablet marketshare?"/"How about integrate with AD, like real Windows, for our corporate and government customers?"/"You know, I'd rather they just use iPads, instead, and get used to horizontal integration.").

 

[Imaginer]

Metro should have been made from the start to inter-operate fully (with some caveats, like clipboard behavior) with the regular desktop UI and "legacy" programs, by way of user-adjustable window size (which are only just getting added--nice divisible screen-size chunks would be fine),

But only in half from what has been revealed. I would like a division like a real window, in fours that can be adjusted.

separating the visible monitor space(s) into Metro (tiling) and desktop (overlapping WIMP)

At first I thought you meant overlapping traditional windows OVER Modern ones and have Modern ones act more like small windows. Or it is that idea and not my other interpretation of a separate display pane of overlapping traditional windows.

Because I feel overlapping (much like my real desk and workbench) hides things, feels more cluttered, and it is a mess to deal with in shuffling used and unused elements. And forcing traditionally windowed items to now take up possibly more space than they were initially designed would be awkward.

Traditional windowed programs that were larger than the intended pane won't fit, resulting in my solution of having that monitor section pane to be able to act like Magnifier to view and pan, with touch. Which I hope gets put in to compensate, allowing for an infinite desktop potentially filled with all the buffet of overlapping windows one ever needs.

slices (dynamically, by resizing the Metro apps, with memory in between uses), and having a distinct compatibility layer (no incestuous code, and WinRT wouldn't get it).

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.

The arbitrary resizing from the start would have also made responsive UI design mandatory to get and keep users, too, for any and all metro app devs :twisted:.

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.

Sure it will allow for adoption of Modern applications on the desktop alto better, and bringing back the whole Charms feel of Vista and 7. But having used Windows 8 as intended (on a touchscreen) the desktop is more awkward. But I am still happy that there are these options side by side, both Modern and desktop traditional, I can still have options to plug in my trackball (I stopped using desktop Opera in favor for touch Modern IE - miss that Opera link ability). It is a compromise that I feel was implemented to quickly get into an already established market so Microsoft wouldn't be more far behind.

While it was being developed, the above would not have been hard to do, but if the APIs don't cooperate, it may be difficult or impossible after-the-fact. Something like the above would have made the new UI, and programs associated with it, pure added value:

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.

if you could make use of them as touch/remote apps, great; if not, you still wouldn't have to worry about trying to get them out of your way, as the only difference would be getting used to tiling windows (easy enough, especially with the applications being made for it).

Give the option for 'touch pointer' for the native desktop environment (and the pane it occupies) and this brings me to accept any desktop improvements to the precision pointing input.

Given the importance of compatibility to MS' user base, especially their business customers, it's mind-boggling to me that they implemented it the way that they did.

It did felt a bit off by a tiny margin on the purely traditional desktop hardware. (I got in on the $15 deal with a machine I built right at the near beginning date of acceptance of machines that 'can' upgrade.) I can see all the start screen complaints - and as I iterated, didn't faze me much due to using a trackball.

But what else could they done to now satisfy a now 80% happy (and in the past - prospective tablet PC) user? The pen was the biggest draw initially, but everything else I used, was clear. However, do note some suggestions I posted earlier in the thread as the reasons why I am not completely satisfied.

Add to that removing subpixel rendering, instead of making it better, and not allowing WinRT on domains ("What would be a good way to get back some phone or tablet marketshare?"/"How about integrate with AD, like real Windows, for our corporate and government customers?"/"You know, I'd rather they just use iPads, instead, and get used to horizontal integration.").

I vouch for the Pro in work environments. You get what you pay for. Cheap clients that have a separate support and an additional attack vector in terms of security or an initial cost of clients upfront to a support cost that won't be additional.