Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 00:39 UTC
Windows It's 2am here (edit: I'm done writing, it's 2:38am now), and I really ought to be sleeping right about now, but for some stupid arbitrary reason, the D9 conference is held at honestly irresponsible hours for us Europeans (and we rock, damnit). So, here I am, MacBook Air on my lap, camomile tea (the Empress of Teas) in my cup, because Microsoft just had to show Windows 8's new interface for the first time at this ungodly hour. Oh, and they unveiled some more interesting stuff about Windows 8. Update: The videos from D9 are up. Mossberg talking to Steve Sinofsky, and the Windows 8 demonstration by Larson-Green.
Order by: Score:
When did HTML5 become a standard?
by Shannara on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 01:13 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

lol, there's no such thing as Standard HTML5 as HTML5 isn't a standard yet ... unless that changed in the last few months?

Reply Score: 7

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well... You know. They are "native HTML5".(www.arewenativeyet.com and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=649408)
People at Microsoft sometimes blabber out such nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

This is hilarious. Thanks for the link.

Reply Score: 2

New tile interface
by Rooki on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 01:14 UTC
Rooki
Member since:
2011-05-12

Looks like a tiling window manager imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE: New tile interface
by bouhko on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 04:05 UTC in reply to "New tile interface"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

I thought the exact same thing and that's really interesting.
I'm usually not a big fan of Microsoft, but I really like the graphic design of this new interface (I liked the Window Phone 7 design as well). It's just gorgeous and way better than OSX or anything I've seen on Linux.

I'm a bit more skeptical about the "works well with mouse" stuff. Doing drag and other touch-like gestures with a mouse is possible but painful, so I'd like to see what they'll come up with there.

So I would say it looks like a nice tablet UI to me. Not so sure if the whole tablet-desktop-same-os is a good idea though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: New tile interface
by sorpigal on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 11:13 UTC in reply to "New tile interface"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I was kind of thinking that, but I believe this is a truly new twist on multiple desktops instead.

All of those "tile" applications are actually running maximized (full screen). You can see it in the video when Excel is running: You have an entire normal Windows desktop with a maximized Excel and a task bar plus a floating window. Another "desktop" is dragged in and a frame is created to contain it, the application running on that desktop resizing to fit automatically.

If such frames are dynamically creatable and can be put anywhere (top, bottom, left, right) and further subdivided and if you can put either individual windows or whole desktops in to them, then I think you've really got something.

I think you'd also have to add focus-follows-mouse, at least at the frame level. Once inside a frame there may or may not be floating, overlapping windows. if there are you'd want to revert to the classic windows focus model while the pointer remains in the frame.

I like that you can tile and untile windows, resize the tile area and create new layouts all without editing any config files or remembering any keybindings. This is good.

Reply Score: 2

RE: New tile interface
by Icaria on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "New tile interface"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Looks more like they've put the final nail in windowing's coffin and embedded two full-screen apps into a paned widget.

I know MS want to be Apple and everything but do they really have to limit your options so severely?

Reply Score: 1

It's so awesome
by ronaldst on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 01:41 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

It looks so refined and well thought out. And so fluid for an Atom based UI. I can't wait for the BETA.

I am truly impressed.

Now just need to see what Steve is preparing.

BTW: There's an HTML5 video stream.

Edited 2011-06-02 01:42 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Underwhelming
by some1 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 01:47 UTC
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

So they're just slapping Windows Phone 7 interface on top of Windows 7 without any integration, just moving win7 into a separate "window", and also screwing their developers who invested in .net and silverlight for their previous platforms? Good move.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Underwhelming
by Banko on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 04:08 UTC in reply to "Underwhelming"
Banko Member since:
2006-09-14

No not really. They would have to write a live tile portion to their program that is about it.

If Microsoft makes a .net runtime for ARM there is no reason why .NET apps won't just work unless of course they call some native Win32 code that might not exist on the ARM version of Windows.

Same story with Silverlight. I swear people don't know how a virtual machine or anything works anymore.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Underwhelming
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Underwhelming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If Microsoft makes a .net runtime for ARM there is no reason why .NET apps won't just work unless of course they call some native Win32 code that might not exist on the ARM version of Windows.

It might help if we appraised ourself of what .Net actually is. It is a wrapper around the Win32/64 API. That's it. That's very x86 specific, and let's be honest, it was what kept developers on Windows on a specific platform. It is all native code underneath, although heavily wrapped.

You simply aren't going to get a complete .Net runtime for the Arm platform because you'll have to port the Win API. Not going to happen.

Same story with Silverlight. I swear people don't know how a virtual machine or anything works anymore.

They're not virtualising anything and this has nothing to do with virtualisation.

Edited 2011-06-02 16:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Underwhelming
by christian on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Underwhelming"
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

"If Microsoft makes a .net runtime for ARM there is no reason why .NET apps won't just work unless of course they call some native Win32 code that might not exist on the ARM version of Windows.

It might help if we appraised ourself of what .Net actually is. It is a wrapper around the Win32/64 API. That's it. That's very x86 specific, and let's be honest, it was what kept developers on Windows on a specific platform.
"

Eh? Win32 was written for MIPS/x86/Alpha/PowerPC (in that order I think). Very little x86 specific.

You simply aren't going to get a complete .Net runtime for the Arm platform because you'll have to port the Win API. Not going to happen.


It will be at least as complete as anything Mono can accomplish. Plus, it will have access to the Windows API, it's Windows!

"Same story with Silverlight. I swear people don't know how a virtual machine or anything works anymore.

They're not virtualising anything and this has nothing to do with virtualisation.
"

CLR is a Virtual Machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime

It's not machine virtualization in the sense of virtualizing hardware, but a virtual machine in the same manner as the Java virtual machine. All very detached from x86 and portable to ARM.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Underwhelming
by segedunum on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Underwhelming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Eh? Win32 was written for MIPS/x86/Alpha/PowerPC (in that order I think). Very little x86 specific.

It's not that it could never be done but there is a heck of a lot that is specific to the x86 architecture because it simply has to know a lot about the processor. It's why Wine hasn't managed it, and they'd then need an emulator to be effective. It's been made clear there will be no emulation in the Arm version of Windows. It's also a monumental effort to support on a different architecture for the benefit of third party programmers - compiler, tool support etc. etc.

As it was, Microsoft just simply couldn't support a complete version of Windows on multiple architectures and it's doubtful that the Arm version of Windows will be.

It will be at least as complete as anything Mono can accomplish. Plus, it will have access to the Windows API, it's Windows!

As complete as Mono isn't anywhere near good enough, and I very much doubt developers will have access to the Windows API in whatever form it is in. Microsoft will have to re-implement the underlying framework - and make sure it works exactly in the same way as other versions of .Net on x86.

CLR is a Virtual Machine

When that depends on a lot of native code implementations you'd be hard pushed to call it that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Underwhelming
by tanzam75 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 06:01 UTC in reply to "Underwhelming"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. No .NET programmability = no go for the touch platform.

Suppose you're writing a touch application that needed to scan a bar code. For example, a sales application or a comparison-shopping application or an inventory application. Are you really going to decode that bar code in Javascript?

Ars Technica reports: "I'm told by insiders that HTML5 and JavaScript won't be the only option, and that existing applications (native, Silverlight, and WPF) will be migratable in some way, but specifics are still lacking at this time." http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/microsoft-gives-the-f...

Microsoft had better get a .NET story out, and *quickly*. Because developers are already hopping mad:

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/A-quick-look-at-Windows-8
http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/p/230502/562083.aspx

Edited 2011-06-02 06:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Underwhelming
by Neolander on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Underwhelming"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The basic design is quite interesting. They've basically taken the tile idea and metro UI design from WP7, have added tiling, and have put some gestures for multitasking and other stuff.

Now, there are some issues.

First problem is that even if they call it Windows 8, this thing is compatible with nothing. Usual Windows software looks out of place. Windows Phone 7 software would look out of place too. It's as if Microsoft created a third OS from a developer's point of view, even though from a technical point of view it obviously shares a lot of stuff with the two others.

Second problem is the gestures. They are not very discoverable (e.g. How is an user supposed to figure out about the tiling functionality ? How to quickly get out of an app ?). They don't work well with a mouse and a keyboard. They imply lots of dragging, which is far slower than pointing and clicking.

I like the split keyboard idea a lot, also, but I don't think these small keys are going to work well on a touchscreen.

Also, something that is not mentioned at all in the video is the question of how well tiles scales when lots of software is installed. Tiles are large, and take up a lot of room. On Windows Phone 7, Microsoft's answer is to only put preferred user software in tiles and put the rest in a large list. No hierarchy, so that list is going to become crowded fairly quickly, but still slower than with a pure tile-based system. Now, it looks like this time around, they want tiles to be the sole launcher mechanism. My question is : how many installed software does it take before the home screen becomes so crowded that it's impossible to find something on it ?

Edited 2011-06-02 06:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Underwhelming
by Lennie on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Underwhelming"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Second problem is the gestures. They are not very discoverable"

That is exactly my problem with most of these touch interfaces.

They make all the icons and so on really big, easy to touch and so on.

But when you want to get some work done, you have no idea how to switch between them or how to kill an application or whatever.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Underwhelming
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Underwhelming"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you as a developer are making an evaluation based on a few demos at a consumer orientated technology show then quite frankly you should close up your company and find employment else where - it is people like that who make the IT industry as crappy as it is with the half baked software and hardware that is released on a near constant basis.

When the developer orientated conference starts in the next few months with the beta released - and all the details are disclosed, then you're more than welcome to rip Microsoft a new one but until then, sit back, take a deep breath, put on a Cat Stevens cd, enjoy a cup of tea and chill out.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Underwhelming
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Underwhelming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The point is that it won't be inconsistent next to every other technology preview they've done. Microsoft are saying they're using standard or 'native' HTML5 and that's what they're going to be using. It was the same with .Net ten years ago and it's the same now.

I don't get this usual whine of waiting for more details when they very, very clearly stated in the video 'standard HTML5'. It's very specific.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Underwhelming
by joshv on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Underwhelming"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Well, it will support .NET because it's windows, and windows runs .NET. Run your app full screen, make sure the UI is touch friendly, and there you go.

There might be some small integration required to make the app aware of the new shell, but I am sure that would be relatively trivial. They aren't going to force everything that's not HTML5/JS to run in a Win 7 like desktop box.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. No .NET programmability = no go for the touch platform.

Suppose you're writing a touch application that needed to scan a bar code. For example, a sales application or a comparison-shopping application or an inventory application. Are you really going to decode that bar code in Javascript?

Ars Technica reports: "I'm told by insiders that HTML5 and JavaScript won't be the only option, and that existing applications (native, Silverlight, and WPF) will be migratable in some way, but specifics are still lacking at this time." http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/microsoft-gives-the-f...

Microsoft had better get a .NET story out, and *quickly*. Because developers are already hopping mad:

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/A-quick-look-at-Windows-8
http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/p/230502/562083.aspx

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Underwhelming
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Underwhelming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep. I love how that guy on the forum naively calls Silverlight 'cross-platform', as if that will save him from the inevitable developer nightmare that is coming.

The reason why they've gone all HTML5 and JavaScript of course is because they are nowhere in the mobile developer space. They simply can't persuade people to use Silverlight, .Net and to jump on the developer upgrade treadmill that is Visual Studio and they also need to persuade developers to port existing code and applications from iOS or the iPhone to Windows.

They did it ten years ago with that whole VB/VB.Net debacle, they did it with Winforms and WPF, they did it with WPF and Silverlight and they have no qualms about doing it again. One can only hope that people buying completely into what Microsoft produces will learn one of these days. Anyone who invested heavily in Vista and 7 only applications with the platform they chose are going to be screwed, but, they deserve it.

Edited 2011-06-02 16:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Underwhelming
by Laurence on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 07:18 UTC in reply to "Underwhelming"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

So they're just slapping Windows Phone 7 interface on top of Windows 7 without any integration, just moving win7 into a separate "window", and also screwing their developers who invested in .net and silverlight for their previous platforms? Good move.

I remember a time when things were clearly labeled. When you knew what was clickable an what was aesthetics.

These constant switches in application interaction - from the ribbon bar to tiled touch interfaces - are just confusing for users.

I'm all for testing and moving towards new paradigms of graphical user interfaces, but at some point someone needs to tell Redmond that a little consistency is long over due.


Also, has anyone else noticed how Windows is becoming more like LCARS (Star Trek's ship computers)? hehe

Reply Score: 5

RE: Underwhelming
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:46 UTC in reply to "Underwhelming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So they're just slapping Windows Phone 7 interface on top of Windows 7 without any integration, just moving win7 into a separate "window", and also screwing their developers who invested in .net and silverlight for their previous platforms? Good move.

That's the most insightful thing written here. Most people never get this stuff though.

Reply Score: 2

the tablet UI... right?
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 01:49 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

This has got to be the UI they are going to use for the tablets....and/or the Screen saver for the desktop/laptop version... I don't see how that design can be close to productive for standard computing.

Reply Score: 12

RE: the tablet UI... right?
by s_groening on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "the tablet UI... right?"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Exactly...

It reminds me of HP's iMac wannabe touch screen computers, that had this rather nice looking, touch enabled UI - right until the point when you had to get any 'real' work done, and you were back to good old Windows ...

So touch based or not; I don't buy this duality as being a viable and efficient interface concept ... -Sorry, Redmond!

Reply Score: 2

It sound pretty neat ... so far
by RichterKuato on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:03 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

I'm still taking the wait and see approach before giving them accolades for reimagining their key product. But it sound pretty neat. I'm sure there may be some nasty legacy surprises when it actually launches though.

I'm don't like the Win7 compatibility mode. I already know it won't work on ARM and will feel out of place on "touch devices". Really it's just Windows Phone 7 with Windows Home Edition compatibility re-branded as Windows 8.

Note that I'm still feeling bitter from my WinXP purchase.

Reply Score: 2

Seriously?
by jptros on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:14 UTC
jptros
Member since:
2005-08-26

Is Microsoft smoking crack? Someone there is if they think this UI is going to fly on a desktop or laptop that is used for anything more than checking email, reading news and looking at pictures. At first I thought I was misunderstanding that this new tile based UI is to be the primary windows 8 interface but then I read it again on ars. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this is seriously disappointing as I have no plans to replace my "real computers" with a toy like a tablet. Don't get me wrong, I think tablets are neat but that's as far as it goes and this notion that the interface shown in that video is going to be my primary interface on my workstations and laptops is absurd.

-- edit --

Ars stated it well: Windows 8 with a Windows 7 ghetto.

Edited 2011-06-02 02:15 UTC

Reply Score: 14

RE: Seriously?
by Luminair on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I don't agree with that last bit. Windows 8 is Windows 7 with another window manager running on top. It is probably an executable that people will hack out of it and run on Windows 7 for fun. It will be listed here with all the other optional, homeless creatures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_shell_replacement

Reply Score: 3

RE: Seriously?
by WorknMan on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 03:50 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Don't get me wrong, I think tablets are neat but that's as far as it goes and this notion that the interface shown in that video is going to be my primary interface on my workstations and laptops is absurd.


Well, as long as they have the classic interface and I can turn off the bullshit, I'm not going to bitch too much. Some folks would accuse us of not adapting to change... well, I'm all for change as long as it's a change for the better. What I am NOT for are these OS vendors' constant attempts to stupify their products so Joe Sixpack doesn't feel lost, while power users get left out in the cold, time after time.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Seriously?
by l3v1 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

stupify their products so Joe Sixpack doesn't feel lost, while power users get left out in the cold, time after time.


Same thoughts here. 99% of my computer time is spent doing algorithm development, most of it (~90%) for win, (c++ and some java, no .net thankyouverymuch), small portion (~10%) for linux (c++). If win will turn into crackpot ui and push towards web-only-apps, and the 90%/10% above will swap overnight without looking back. Just a note, I notice more and more people going "back" to [or picking] linux for algo. dev. recently (I mean more than before), and I like it. Important thing is, that we still have OSes that can be used for decent dev.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Important thing is, that we still have OSes that can be used for decent dev.


Yes, of course, if your app runs in command line/terminal and you like to write code in text editors and you like to compile from command line.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Seriously?
by M.Onty on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Yes, of course, if your app runs in command line/terminal and you like to write code in text editors and you like to compile from command line.


Ye Gods! Writing code in a text editor? Lets get the bastard before he does unpleasant things with our children!

Reply Score: 3

pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Sinofsky was also asked if OEMs could forgo the classic interface altogether, and the answer was - "just don't use any desktop applications"


So their new strategy is what? To lock everyone into IE only Web apps and Silverlight? After all, if Microsoft itself is trying to phase out traditional desktop application, that kind of leaves it open for people to easily switch to another platform.

Reply Score: 5

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I view this as a more modest conservative approach: They aren't removing the standard windows UI and if you just use it and apps written for it you won't even notice most of the new stuff. However, if you choose to use apps written for the new system you get the demoed UI and it will work better for tables and phones.

I'm not sure it will work as a strategy but I don't think MS is seriously considering deprecating traditional apps or the traditional UI.

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


I'm not sure it will work as a strategy but I don't think MS is seriously considering deprecating traditional apps or the traditional UI.


Yeah, just imagine when you watch pr0n on your 22" touch screen monitor and you use your fingers to pause/play, go forward and backward. It's going to be a dream.

Too bad there aren't too many 22" touch screen monitors out there and people still keyboard and mouse.

I can just imagine how nice will be to run Visual Studio on this new UI or using touch screen for typing a 20+ pages word document.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't think anyone is suggesting to use the touchscreen for typing a 20+ page document.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:20 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

this is a ditsy user interface. but with all the GUI upheaval (everything everywhere is changing) we can't say with confidence if it'll work or not, or even if they're on the right track or not.

to me it feels like an improvement on the iphone ios. I see the roots and inspiration of this GUI in Apple products, not Microsoft ones.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

are you kidding me? The Metro UI is no where close to what apple has. Microsoft has combined the usefulness of widgets and the functionality of launchers into a single UI and you think it looks like the iOS UI?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by bogomipz on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Widgets combined with launchers is exactly what you have in iOS, which inherits the concept from the OS X Dock, which again is a slightly more modern version of the NeXTstep Dock from 1988.

But the Apple version has not evolved from its origin of being sized like an icon. So the usefulness of the widget is very limited, and most apps don't make use of it at all.

Sizing the launchers up to more widget-like sizes gives a much better result. Apps are more likely to actually make them more than a mere icon, and it also means that web bookmarks can be presented as thumbnails and fit into the same mosaic. I like.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

looks at iOS on iPhone... hmm... not a single widgit.

You have never used an iOS device... have you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by Neolander on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think what he says is that the iOS API allows software to alter its icon, in a widget-ish way, even though in practice the icon is so small that it is nearly useless, save for the little colored numbers of push notifications.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by bogomipz on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, exactly. And the point was that the combination widget/launcher is not new, but Microsoft greatly improved on it by making the tiles bigger.

There is one app on iOS that makes real use of this btw - the calendar shows the current date in the icon.

The WindowMaker community has managed to come up with hundreds of ways to fit actual functionality into the tiny dock tiles [1]. Similar ones existed for NeXTstep way before that, but not in such great numbers.

[1] http://www.dockapps.org

Reply Score: 2

Not my thing on a desktop
by coreyography on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:30 UTC
coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

Too much swiping over too great distances, whether with mouse or finger. It's different, though, I'll give them that. And I too applaud them for making it lighter weight; there was really no excuse for Vista's (or 7's, for that matter) bloat.

As for the x86 vs. ARM thing: I'm most certainly _not_ going to "suck it" if I have to purchase a new license for an app (or Windows 8 itself) because I decide to move it from an ARM-powered PC to an x86 one, or vice versa.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not my thing on a desktop
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "Not my thing on a desktop"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

7 has bloat?

where?

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Not my thing on a desktop
by andih on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Not my thing on a desktop"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

This is bloat in my opinion: ;)
Illogical menus and crappy GUI
The need for running antivirus
The need for running antispywere
The need for running ccleaner or related progams
Windows run a lot of bloat processes
Endless reboots and windows upate
Design flaw having every program running its updaters
Aero is bloat
Registry is bloat
and much more.. and much more bloat to come im sure :p

No way Im changing bash terminal and awesomewm with this crap.
Awesome = real tiling window manager
Bash terminal = best file manager out there by far.
Only geeks know this though..
Casual users will sure take the bait and buy this shining new status symbol..


Yeah brother! I have to agree on that. Who needs proprietary crap when one can have a free GNU/Lunix stack?

Who needs Photoshop and MS Office when we can run the completely free Gimp and Emacs? And Gimp and Emacs are much better and faster than ugly Photoshop and Office.

Running programs from terminal is pure awesomeness. Just think of lynx (powerful web browser), Mutt (powerful email client) and Vim (powerful text editor).

And writing powerful BASH scripts is insane, it's like an orgasm!

I'm glad that you are here and using Gnu/Lunix, bro, that means there are still some true FOSS believers, that means not all people sold their souls to proprietary pigs. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Not my thing on a desktop
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not my thing on a desktop"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This is bloat in my opinion: ;)
Illogical menus and crappy GUI
The need for running antivirus
The need for running antispywere
The need for running ccleaner or related progams
Windows run a lot of bloat processes
Endless reboots and windows upate
Design flaw having every program running its updaters
Aero is bloat
Registry is bloat
and much more.. and much more bloat to come im sure :p

No way Im changing bash terminal and awesomewm with this crap.
Awesome = real tiling window manager
Bash terminal = best file manager out there by far.
Only geeks know this though..
Casual users will sure take the bait and buy this shining new status symbol..


Yeah brother! I have to agree on that. Who needs proprietary crap when one can have a free GNU/Lunix stack?

Who needs Photoshop and MS Office when we can run the completely free Gimp and Emacs? And Gimp and Emacs are much better and faster than ugly Photoshop and Office.

Running programs from terminal is pure awesomeness. Just think of lynx (powerful web browser), Mutt (powerful email client) and Vim (powerful text editor).

And writing powerful BASH scripts is insane, it's like an orgasm!

I'm glad that you are here and using Gnu/Lunix, bro, that means there are still some true FOSS believers, that means not all people sold their souls to proprietary pigs. ;)
"

Actually, on any of my Linux systems, if I wish to do editing/enhancement/management of digital photos, I run digikam.

http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/digikam-2-0-beta-review/
http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about/features9x

If I wish to do raster graphics composition (painting) I run Krita

http://www.calligra-suite.org/krita/

The web browsers I typically use are Firefox 4 and Google Chrome.

If I want to use an Office suite, I run LibreOffice

http://www.libreoffice.org/features/

If I want to do plain text editing, I run Kate

http://www.kde.org/applications/utilities/kate/

For file management, I use Dolphin:

http://www.kde.org/applications/system/dolphin/

This set of free (both as in liberty and as in zero cost) GUI desktop application is paradoxically far better than what is available to me on any Windows desktop I am obliged to use from time to time. In addition, on a Linux system, I also enjoy a far better CLI environment if I wish to use that. Best of both worlds, for free.

Edited 2011-06-02 13:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

He was taking the piss.

Anyway, this ...

This set of free (both as in liberty and as in zero cost) GUI desktop application is paradoxically far better than what is available to me on any Windows desktop I am obliged to use from time to time. In addition, on a Linux system,


is a matter of opinion ... one I and I sure other will disagree on. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

I also enjoy a far better CLI environment if I wish to use that. Best of both worlds, for free.


Again a matter of opinion ... Powershell has the ability to deal with objects and leverage the power of the .NET platform.

If you are talking about cmd.exe ... well you are quite out of date ... since Powershell is included with Vista and 7 in the default install.

Edited 2011-06-02 14:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Minor correction: Powershell is included in Vista SP1 or above.

I was stupefied that they didn't include it and .net framework in Vista RTM.

It was those two things that really caused me to separate myself from the whole windows development environment. .Net framework should have been included in Windows XP.

Powershell is great, but its about the whole of the cli environment not just the shell itself. Unix has a more mature set of tools, and many popular applications for the platform are written with a cli interface as well.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Minor correction: Powershell is included in Vista SP1 or above.


Fair point (just checked Wikipedia you are right), I started using Vista after the first service pack, so I just assumed it came with it .. since I saw it on first boot when looking through what was included with my Business Edition I got through MSDNAA.

I was stupefied that they didn't include it and .net framework in Vista RTM.


Again Fair point ... The only thing is that they might as seen powershell as a developer/admin/power user thing and left it out of the default install and assumed that users that really wanted it would download anyway. But I do agree it certainly wouldn't have hurt to have put it in, even as a optional OS component.

Powershell is great, but its about the whole of the cli environment not just the shell itself. Unix has a more mature set of tools, and many popular applications for the platform are written with a cli interface as well.


A lot of it is personal preference ... I do like some of the unix tools don't get me wrong. I have a Sun Blade 100 sitting next to my feet running OpenBSD ...

But I really don't like mucking about with piping text all over the place ... I prefer working with Objects, whether that is JSON, POCOs or XML ... it just easier IMO (if done right as with many things) to work with.

Also Powershell's syntax is not dissimilar to C# so the learning curve for me is gentler.

I am fairly familiar with unix like CLIs since I been working with various Unix like systems since IRIX at University, I just prefer Microsoft tools ... I use them quite a lot at work ... so it maybe just familiarity.

As many things with using a computer ... you need to use the right tech for the job and there is no one-size fits all solution.

Edited 2011-06-02 17:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not my thing on a desktop
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not my thing on a desktop"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sometimes you get what you pay for.


... and sometimes one gets an expensive bare-bones OS that is plagued with malware written to compromise it, saddled with ancient legacy encumberances, illogical, inconsistent eclectic GUI, un-auditable, having next-to-usless lack-of-management of application installations (actively increasing the effectiveness of attack vectors such as trojans and phising), includes anti-features, has generally very expensive applications, and perhaps worst of all, one which carries a legal risk of attracting a lawsuit through one's mere use of it.

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


... and sometimes one gets an expensive bare-bones OS that is plagued with malware written to compromise it, saddled with ancient legacy encumberances, illogical, inconsistent eclectic GUI, un-auditable, having next-to-usless lack-of-management of application installations (actively increasing the effectiveness of attack vectors such as trojans and phising), includes anti-features, has generally very expensive applications, and perhaps worst of all, one which carries a legal risk of attracting a lawsuit through one's mere use of it.


Yes, that horrible, horrible OS sucks big time. Everybody should see the light and switch to GNU/Lunix and enjoy the power and freedom of CLI, BASH and Emacs. Until is too late.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"Sometimes you get what you pay for.


... and sometimes one gets an expensive bare-bones OS that is plagued with malware written to compromise it, saddled with ancient legacy encumberances, illogical, inconsistent eclectic GUI, un-auditable, having next-to-usless lack-of-management of application installations (actively increasing the effectiveness of attack vectors such as trojans and phising), includes anti-features, has generally very expensive applications, and perhaps worst of all, one which carries a legal risk of attracting a lawsuit through one's mere use of it.
"

It seems the truth annoys you?

There is so much misinformation there it is difficult to know where to begin.

For my requirements the Open Source alternatives are insufficient in features that I require and I am quite happy paying for software that does meet my requirements.

However this seems to upset you so greatly?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not my thing on a desktop
by Lennie on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not my thing on a desktop"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

PowerShell is incredibly bloated too.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

This is bloat in my opinion: ;)
Illogical menus and crappy GUI


No Windows 2000 through 7 have been pretty good tbh, Most changes other that purely aethestic have been introduced in a evolutionary fashion.

The need for running antivirus


MSE has pretty much buggar all overhead.

The need for running antispywere


Don't need to run it since I don't download any spyware ... research for the win.

The need for running ccleaner or related progams


They are only run on occasion rather infrequently ... so what is the problem exactly?

Windows run a lot of bloat processes


Not really a problem when most don't use any CPU or memory overhead unless actually doing something ... apparently someone doesn't understand how an OS schedules tasks.

Endless reboots and windows upate


Haven't rebooted for a least a week.

Design flaw having every program running its updaters


Only if you let them.

Aero is bloat


No it isn't, My GPU does the "Graphics Bit" while my CPU does the "processing bit" ... my system is more responsive as a result. I find Windows 7 to feel faster than XP running on the same hardware.

Registry is bloat


Heard of GConf?

and much more.. and much more bloat to come im sure :p


Yawn ... what you call bloat I call features ... depends whether it is of any use to you.

No way Im changing bash terminal and awesomewm with this crap.


Nobody is forcing you.

Awesome = real tiling window manager


These are only any good if you actually organise your Windows ... I don't, many users don't.

Bash terminal = best file manager out there by far.
Only geeks know this though..


Yeah because only geeks should be able to use computers ... elitism much?

Casual users will sure take the bait and buy this shining new status symbol..


Looks pretty good for casual users .. but apparenty guys like you scorn people for not being able to use a Unix Terminal like second nature ... you can live in your Ivory CLI tower pretending to be l33t whilst the rest of the world uses something that they can use easily.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What you would consider "Normal users" are probably in the minority. I know quite a few users that use the file open/save dialog from microsoft office to do their file management. My Documents/ Desktop are the only two folders they are aware of.

Reply Score: 2

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

No Windows 2000 through 7 have been pretty good tbh, Most changes other that purely aethestic have been introduced in a evolutionary fashion.


I'm sorry but I just can't let that go by

Vista is by far the worst OS ever the GUI is vile almost everything about it is vile - the search is OK and don't mention ME Vista is worse.

Edited 2011-06-02 17:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

The need for running antivirus


MSE has pretty much buggar all overhead.


Bugger all overhead is not the only test of an AV - only time will tell if MSE is a good AV. I personally would not uncritically trust MS with making an AV.

Edited 2011-06-02 17:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: Not my thing on a desktop
by andih on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not my thing on a desktop"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

While you are happy with hardware acceleration on aero, I think needing HW acceleration for a UI shouldn’t be necessary at all. I see it as a major design flaw and bloat.


How dare we use our Hardware to make out computer faster by using the really fast 3d accelerator card.

While you update your programs (ninite can be your friend here btw), MSE, defragging, scanning, indexing.., I can do things that are actually useful, instead of "useful" things that are artificially constructed by MS, what you seem to think of as features..


I write code for a living, I rarely have to do much in "housekeeping" with Windows. I just use it.

I don not see automated defragging when idle as a feature.. I see it as a design flaw that MS tries to hide adding bloat and complexity the OS.., not a feature.


I don't care whether it is a design flaw or not ... I don't notice it happening, and I can carrying on working.

I install, fix and maintain windows computers for a living, so I know my way around windows systems too.. Although I could never depend on a windows computer for own use.. For my needs, Windows is simply not complying.


Good for you. I find Windows is perfect for my needs. I spend less time housekeeping and more time working and using my computer.

I dont use gnome myself, but I use it for setting up computers for noobs and for those who like overlapping windows. It works until HW failure, unlike most windows systems.


Elitism again ... Also Windows doesn't just randomly break. The only time I have had Windows break ... is ironically when I installed Linux and it killed my bootloader or HW failure.

These are only any good if you actually organise If I did understand you correctly: You have clearly no idea how tiling works. With tiling you don’t have to organize your windows.. that’s the whole point with tiling. ;) No need to "mousing" around.


I know how tiling works, I just don't care.

Need for running MSE is still bloat ... The whole anti-virus business is alive, just because of all the weaknesses is windows... debate lol ;)


Unfortunately the same features that make Windows great for running hundreds of programs is the exact same features that make it great for malware ... as I keep on saying user education is the key to security.

Good for you that you don't install spyware.
Everyone is not as smart as you ;)


I have always said that user education is the key to security.

I was listing bloat, not problems. Its still bloat and ideally it would not be unnecessary.


Enough with this bloat rubbish ... Nobody cares anymore, even the cheapest Laptops and desktops come with multi-core-multi-GHZ processors and thousands of megabytes of ram ... it is a non-issue these days.

If you are complaining about "bloat" then apparently it is a problem to you and I was outlining why it really isn't.

Casual users would normally be better off with a well set up linux system. hardcore gamers should still stick with windows for directX (or/and buy a console?)


No they wouldn't when they update the system and something breaks (which is does frequently), they will have a computer they can't use. If they want to install some software for a third party device they have bought it won't work because most software is written for Windows or Mac ... People will just get frustrated and ask for Windows.

Advanced users should check out other alternatives instead of blindly swallow everything that comes from MS, usually there is alternatives that would suite ones needs much much better than Windows, one just have to go discovering it.. nothing to do with pretending to be l33t.


I have checked out the alternatives, I have used Redhat, Suse, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX etc ... and I chose Windows ... and I am pretty good on a Unix command prompt.

When you discover it, you will probably wonder how you could put up with all that crap for so long.


Elistism again. I used to admin Linux ... and I hate them.

I have used pretty much everything. I just can't be arsed messing about configuring crap anymore with text files (I do enough of that for a living) or messing about with software repos to install 3d drivers or any of the other crap that I had to do over the years to have a working Linux system.

I used to spend more time housekeeping than actually working when I used to muck about with Linux and you know .... I am just too lazy and fed up of it.

Edited 2011-06-03 10:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Nice long post some interesting points - but if you think Vista is a good OS how can we take anything you say seriously.

Reply Score: 2

zombieChan Member since:
2010-10-20

"Nice long post some interesting points - but if you think Vista is a good OS how can we take anything you say seriously."

I installed Vista after a year it was released... You know what... I thought it was a huge improvement from Vista. I had zero problems running it on my laptop.

It is hard to believe, but people did like Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not my thing on a desktop
by Lennie on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not my thing on a desktop"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"Aero is bloat"

Memory wise it isn't a very lightweight window manager like the original.

Reply Score: 3

Original shell
by pantheraleo on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 02:39 UTC
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Also, I'm sure they will provide the original shell for awhile. Hell, they still provide "Windows classic", which is based off the Windows 95 look and feel. Even in Windows 7. And Windows 95, and I believe 98 as well, still included the Windows 3.1 program manager for those that wanted to use the old Windows 3.1 look and feel.

Reply Score: 1

Repeat sucess of Wp7?
by vtolkov on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 03:14 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

I dunno. Interface is optimized for tablets, looks strange on a desktop. Windows was good for running classic apps. It looks cool on demo, but I can't imagine how it will work in corps with their old inhouse software. Looks like the end of old Windows era, but the new Windows is a new unknown thing. Risky movement.

Reply Score: 1

Ho hum...
by quackalist on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 03:57 UTC
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

Err, might work on a tablet but it'd be the first thing I'd rid myself of once installed on a desktop. If that's it for 8 they can shove it.

Reply Score: 1

Why bother with the integration?
by leos on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 04:32 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

On a serious desktop, the tile UI will be useless. Think of the programs you use to get work done every day. Serious applications, not browsers, weather apps, and facebook. None of those apps will fit into the tile UI, so at work you will spend 99% of your time in the "classic" window and the rest will just be an annoyance. Instead of checking the weather unobtrusively, you get to pull up a giant full-screen window with a picture of the sun that's the size of your head (what? I have a big monitor).

Then when you have a tablet, the old windows apps will still be hopeless to use with a touch screen, so the "classic" windows part will be pointless.

I don't get why they don't just scale up windows phone to a tablet. And HTML5 instead of Silverlight? I'm all for HTML5, but hell, pick a strategy and stick with it!

As for the multitasking? How exactly is it awesome that you have to flip through each app linearly? And splitting the screen but only horizontally is pointlessly limiting as well. By the way, anyone that is in the business of explaining computers to other people is going to have a fun time with these two side by side wildly different window management paradigms.

Edited 2011-06-02 04:36 UTC

Reply Score: 10

Tiles cool, swiping... not so much
by transami on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 04:34 UTC
transami
Member since:
2006-02-28

I think the tiles thing will work well.

However all that finger swiping business is going to suck hard --it's too "analog".

If I tried to explain this to my grandmother (the one true benchmark for any UI) she is going to look at me like I lost my mind.

Reply Score: 4

Love the thumbs keyboard
by siraf72 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 06:31 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

that is a great and obvious solution. Take note, Cupertino.

Reply Score: 1

I like it for tablets
by error32 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 07:25 UTC
error32
Member since:
2008-12-10

I like it for tablets and maybe to put somewhere as an information display. But of course for any productive work the classic interface will have to be used.
It is like on my Vaio laptop, there is a nice media interface program, but if you want to get some real work done it will be the first thing to remove to save some disk space...

Reply Score: 1

Perceived / Planned Obsolescence
by poladark on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 08:39 UTC
poladark
Member since:
2009-07-15

As far as desktop computers go, I think it's fairly obvious that Microsoft aren't primarily focusing on the usability of the graphical shell here. Don't get me wrong, it's not like they do it for shits and giggles. There's a very good reason for it: Perceived Obsolescence.

What's going through their minds is: "how are we going to sell people a product that on the surface looks just like it did 15 years ago?". What they want, is for people to to stand in the computer store and go: "Ooh, shiny! This looks so much more modern than my old PC!". After all, that's the effect that a Mac has. Somehow, software has become like the fashion industry.

...of course - making a new shiny GUI makes it necessary to throw out "old and boring" designs. It is deemed irrelevant that the old designs actually worked in day-to-day use.

I'm not sure if it's worth getting upset over in the end though. The Windows Server product line will retain the "Windows Classic" way of doing things. After all, the "Windows Classic" way is the only way that Microsoft has figured out that allows users to get some actual work done...

Reply Score: 4

Nice work Microsoft!
by steve_s on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 09:06 UTC
steve_s
Member since:
2006-01-16

I know that lots of people are going to hate this new UI. People are very resistant to change.

Back in the mists of time, nearly 20 years ago now, I was an early adopter of the Apple Newton, and developer for that platform. That experience taught me that eventually the immediacy of touch-based interfaces would win out (for most applications) over keyboard/mouse. I'd frequently find myself attempting to tap on things on my Mac's screen with my Newton's pen only to be frustrated that it didn't work. Touching things is very natural.

This new UI looks like it will work perfectly acceptably using a keyboard and mouse or using touch. In contrast the old Windows UI was a non-starter with finger-based touch, and awkward at best with pen-based touch.

Most people do not have desktop/laptop computers that have touch-screens. They'll see this more touch-oriented UI and dismiss it. That's short-term thinking, looking backwards to the equipment they currently have in front of them and what they are used to using.

Give it 5-10 years and it will be difficult to find desktop/laptop computers that don't have touch-screen support. With a decent desktop touch interface available we'll start to see computers in real desktop (i.e. horizontal) and drawing-board orientations, solving the "arm-ache" issue of using touch on a desk-bound vertical screen.

This UI is being built for that future, and not for the past. I'm far from being an MS fan-boy, but I'd like to say thank you to Microsoft for taking the bold steps that will enable this future to happen.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice work Microsoft!
by ricegf on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 12:04 UTC in reply to "Nice work Microsoft!"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Address your thank you notes to:

Mark Shuttleworth and the Unity Team
Canonical Group Limited
27th Floor, Millbank Tower
21-24 Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
United Kingdom

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice work Microsoft!
by leos on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 14:49 UTC in reply to "Nice work Microsoft!"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

This UI is being built for that future, and not for the past. I'm far from being an MS fan-boy, but I'd like to say thank you to Microsoft for taking the bold steps that will enable this future to happen.


Yes very nice. You still haven't explained how serious work will be done using a touch interface. Don't get me wrong, I think tablets are awesome and for casual data interaction and light data creation tasks they work great, but think about what you work on all day. How much of that could feasibly work on a touch screen? 10%? 20%?, Maybe even 50%? I don't think we will ever get to 100%, because touch interaction is not suitable for a "sit down at your desk and work" use-case. It just isn't, no matter how clever the interface is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice work Microsoft!
by steve_s on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice work Microsoft!"
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

How much of the work that I do all day could feasibly be done on a touch screen? I'd say 100%.

I'm a programmer, web developer, user interface designer, and mobile app developer. There is nothing that I do that could not be done on a touch-screen based computer as efficiently as I do today using a keyboard and mouse.

I'm not saying that it would be feasible for me to swap to a touch-based computer today - I'm talking about what will be possible in a few years. I'd like a large screen, as big as my plasma telly but with at least twice the resolution, that's either horizontal covering a desk top or angled up a little like a drafting table. Given that I don't think I'd want a physical keyboard getting between me and the screen, or a mouse and pointer getting in the way of me more directly interacting with the UI.

Fingers will obviously be the main interaction method for touch UIs, but for fine details you'll grab a pen. I rarely need to do such fine work myself though.

What will make this practical is redesigned user interfaces that bear touch interaction in mind. UI controls that are small and fiddly don't work - things need to be bigger and more tolerant of fat fingers. Using apps made for today's desktop UIs with fingers isn't going to fly - it didn't work too well for pen-based tablets either.

To restate, I firmly believe that 100% of my work could be done using a touch-based computing environment. Were I a graphic artist, a movie editor, or a musician I'd say the same. Pessimistically I'd say that in 10 years time this will be norm for all of these use-cases. Optimistically I expect that within 5 years touch will be dominant for all new machines and software.

The more pertinent question is what work do you think cannot be done feasibly on a touch screen, given a suitably designed UI?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice work Microsoft!
by Neolander on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice work Microsoft!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Basically, all work which implies having lots of features at once or working on a detailed object. Flat finger-based touchscreens will never be good at this, due to their terrible input resolution. Haptic feedback or pen input would be required before they become suitable for it.

As an example, drawing and handwriting with fingers is needlessly tedious and complicated, because either you use a finger-sized brush and have terrible precision, or you use a pixel-sized brush that writes at a random place on your finger's surface and must be ready to endure terrible headaches.

Coding is another example : the coding workflow (at least mine) implies seeing lots of code at once and being able to select/copy/paste code snippets quickly and easily. These goals are contradictory on a finger-based touchscreen : to allow for fast finger-based freeform selection, text must be really big, and even if you have a gigantic-sized screen it will still feel uncomfortable to visually parse lots of big text at once.

On the feature side... I can't imagine using something like a word processor on a finger-based touchscreen beyond a wordpad-like workflow where formatting is only a matter of changing font size and using underline/bold/italic functions. Packing that much features in an UI that can be used with big fingers while still being able to see what you're writing would mean that the interface would offer only little immediate access to the software's functionality. Tables, styles, pdf export, subscript/superscript, and other "minor" functionality would require switching interface tabs or going through kilometric menus.

Again, all these problems can be solved through use of a pen-based interface, even though in that case text input becomes an issue (as good as pen is for pointing, selecting, and drawing, it's horrible for inputting text, so you need to put down the pen each time you write). A pen + haptic feedback to make text input on a touchscreen comparable to a keyboard experience could do the trick and make touchscreens an acceptable universal interface for tomorrow. But touchscreens as they stand today ? No. Not good for my work.

Edited 2011-06-02 17:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice work Microsoft!
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice work Microsoft!"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


The more pertinent question is what work do you think cannot be done feasibly on a touch screen, given a suitably designed UI?


All things productive. From programming to writing 20+ pages in Word. All things that take many hours of work and requires to write a lot and use many buttons. Even gaming will be a nightmare with touch screen only.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice work Microsoft!
by Lennie on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice work Microsoft!"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What I hate about most of these interfaces is discoverability. They should add arrows to the interface so you can see where there is something you can try.

And if you do that, I think it would help with making a touch interface work with keyboard/mouse as well.

Reply Score: 2

Stock pick
by wocowboy on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 10:00 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

After watching this video, and rolling my eyes a lot, I have decided that if Microsoft does make this monstrosity the default interface/desktop for Windows 8, I will buy major bunches of stock in Windex glass cleaner, because sales are going to go through the ROOF! This interface might work on a small tablet or phone screen, but to suggest it will work on a 21" monitor is ludicrous. I realize that it will somehow work with a keyboard/mouse, but that was not demonstrated at all on the video. Chalk me up as a giant NO on this one.

Reply Score: 1

My first thoughts
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 11:04 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I think Microsoft guys might be on crack or Met.

I really hope that they ship with different interfaces for tablets and PCs. The new UI will suck big time on a Desktop/Laptop and the classic UI & classic apps will suck big time on a tablet.

I also really hope they won't promote HTML5 and js as the main programming paradigm for Windows 8 GUI. .NET, WPF and Silverlight are 1 million times better from any poin of view. What's next, they will promote Logo for Windows 9?

Although they will trim the fat from Windows, it's still a full featured OS, not just a kernel with a UI like Android. That means hardware requirements are going to be BIG for tablets. I don't know if any of the actual Arm CPUs will be capable of running WIndows 8. Sure, it will run fine on an Atom platform but that's going to cost battery life and what's the point in using a tablet if your battery lasts just 2 hours?

Reply Score: 3

RE: My first thoughts
by Neolander on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 11:07 UTC in reply to "My first thoughts"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Although they will trim the fat from Windows, it's still a full featured OS, not just a kernel with a UI like Android. That means hardware requirements are going to be BIG for tablets. I don't know if any of the actual Arm CPUs will be capable of running WIndows 8. Sure, it will run fine on an Atom platform but that's going to cost battery life and what's the point in using a tablet if your battery lasts just 2 hours?

Hmmm... Please state your definition of a full featured OS.

For me, an OS is an interface between hardware, users, and developers.

Android runs on a wide range of phones, so it abstracts hardware away. Users interact directly with it. It provides developers with an API that allow them to interact with the abstracted hardware and the user without reinventing the wheel. So in my opinion, it's a full-blown OS.

Edited 2011-06-02 11:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

I have reservations if this very flashy and nice UI will run on our current machines. I hope there is a button to turn off the flashy interface.

Furthermore, Microsoft must absolutely not forget developers and developer tools.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

An aunt of mine once asked me to train her on using Windows XP. She could not make heads or tails of the XP UI. She never learned when to click or double click, to turn off the computer from the button 'start' and many other things.

I think this UI is very nice for computer novices. It will enable many people, including older ones, to use computers.

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


I think this UI is very nice for computer novices. It will enable many people, including older ones, to use computers.


While enabling experienced users to be much less productive.

Reply Score: 4

great for @ home use , bad for @work use
by swebb911 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 11:55 UTC
swebb911
Member since:
2011-06-02

When you are at work using the computer ,
you will most likely be blocked (by policy or implementation) from facebook , checking the temperature , watching you tube videos and looking at your pictures, general browsing on the internet.
So most of this is irrelavant crap during the working day (most of our lives)

If you are the end user at work , its in-house applications,
word,excel , emails and a bunch of 'classical applications'
If you are business applications developer (as most developers are) then most of this is irrelevant.

Even if you wanted to use a touch display, after 8 hours your arms will fall off , after one week you will be in hospital with neck/shoulder RSI

With my three 32" monitors it would not take more than 30 minutes of work before my arms grew too tired to work anymore.

Its designed primarily for fat lazy people sitting back in the arm chairs with their tablet eating pizza whilst looking at porn videos and swilling beer.
Its blingy/shiny enough for those that feel they are 'techno savvy' to go 'cool i want one'

Techno Fashion for the Techno peasant zombie.

Crap wrapped in shiny gold paper is still Crap , just a lot more expensive , but equally useless..

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Its designed primarily for fat lazy people sitting back in the arm chairs with their tablet eating pizza whilst looking at porn videos and swilling beer.

Disagree. As twitterfire mentioned, porn + touchscreen = ew !

More generally, touchscreens are probably the dirtiest general-purpose computer interface ever invented. People were not satisfied enough with what hides under their keyboard keys, so we have created an interface where the finger must be consciously dragged on a surface in order to enforce better unhygienic coating, and which is left exposed to exterior dirt when not in use.

Edited 2011-06-02 12:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

More generally, touchscreens are probably the dirtiest general-purpose computer interface ever invented. People were not satisfied enough with what hides under their keyboard keys, so we have created an interface where the finger must be consciously dragged on a surface in order to enforce better unhygienic coating, and which is left exposed to exterior dirt when not in use.


You are aware that the human body has an immune system?

Many people touch my desk during the day, however I am not constantly wiping it. Many people are touching door handles but they are not constantly cleaned and nobody really worries about it.

Who really cares if there are other peoples germs on a surface? It not like there is killer plague on every screen ... it really doesn't matter.

Edited 2011-06-02 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I know that, but you must admit that touchscreens easily end up looking quite ugly after a few months of use.

And since there's electronics underneath, you can't use anything but a dry piece of tissue to wipe that, which in turn is not fantastically effective.

There's a reason why some people are maniac about people who touch their computer screen : newer screens attract stain and make it stick.

Edited 2011-06-02 14:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I must be a lot different than most computer users ... I see my kit strictly as a tool ... so most of my stuff is pretty beat up and dirty ... with various hacks and bodges to keep them going.

Edited 2011-06-02 15:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

There are various products available for cleaning LCD and or touch screens. They work really well.

Although, I'm still a maniac who doesn't let other people touch my ( non touch) screens.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That the difference ... I still have all sorts of finger prints, dust etc all over my kit ... then again most of kit seems to work forever (still apparently have an Athlon XP 1400+ that I sold to some guy still working absolutely fine.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"More generally, touchscreens are probably the dirtiest general-purpose computer interface ever invented. People were not satisfied enough with what hides under their keyboard keys, so we have created an interface where the finger must be consciously dragged on a surface in order to enforce better unhygienic coating, and which is left exposed to exterior dirt when not in use.


You are aware that the human body has an immune system?

Many people touch my desk during the day, however I am not constantly wiping it. Many people are touching door handles but they are not constantly cleaned and nobody really worries about it.
"
Really you missed it. A keyboard and mouse is harder to proper clean than a touch screen. Good grade touch screen devices have very few groves and other locations for infections to hide. Also good grade stand isopropyl alcohol. Generally a highly effective kill anything solution in high enough concentrations. Packages up into nice sealed throw away wipes.

Basically touchscreen beats keyboard and mouse. Of course no touch is better again. But using no touch interfaces has really not be sorted out.

Exterior dirt coats keyboards and mice just as badly in some cases worse. Hand does not drag across mouse so areas of mouse just builds more and more build up.

So the wiping actions of users on a touch screen is part self cleaning. Ok not ideal that the cleaning material is another human. It reduces what the infections have to grow on.

Yes door handles have the same self cleaning system. Yes ugly. Touch screen is not much worse than door handles. Of course in case of major surface spread infection out brakes I don't recommend touching either directly.

Also depending what the final coat of the touchscreen is and the backing light. Yes its possible even if slightly unhealthy to intentionally fit a back light that gives of bacteria and virus distributive light.

Now that is the thing touchscreens don't have a rating on how anti bacteria and viruses they are to the general public. Their are medical grade ones surface and back-lighting makes them a lot safer than a keyboard and mouse.

Reply Score: 2

No more default admin rights?
by Rob2011 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 12:51 UTC
Rob2011
Member since:
2011-06-02

Now there is a new tile-based GUI requiring new applications, Microsoft should ensure that the tile system can only be run by standard user accounts and not as administrator. No user interface features should be running in an admin context (obviously you will be prompted for the admin password to install apps, or to make certain system changes, but the escalation of privilege can happen in the background).

As of Windows 7, the setup procedure asks the user for a name, and then gives them full admin rights, which is appalling. Admin mode should be used in exceptional circumstances only. (Yes, I know technically it's not an administrator account due to UAC, but UAC is so easy to circumvent!).
Ideally everything would be sandboxed so that no more of these stupid Java / Adobe / Javascript malware can break out into the system. Perhaps the "Windows 7 Classic" mode could have 2 versions - a standard user mode for applications like MS Office which require no admin rights, and a 'virtual admin mode' which would be used by old apps which require admin rights for whatever reason.
This is the biggest change in UI since Windows 2.0, and will require 3rd parties to rewrite all software to support the new platform (including malware writers!!). Let's hope Microsoft don't squander this opportunity to finally get security 'right'.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No more default admin rights?
by joekiser on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 13:02 UTC in reply to "No more default admin rights?"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

As of Windows 7, the setup procedure asks the user for a name, and then gives them full admin rights, which is appalling. Admin mode should be used in exceptional circumstances only. (Yes, I know technically it's not an administrator account due to UAC, but UAC is so easy to circumvent!).


Name your first user account root. Give it a password. On your first login as root, create a standard user account, and log out. From now on, you run as a standard user, and when you actually need escalation of privileges a UAC password dialog pops up. This setup is exactly what UNIX does. The only difference is that the Windows installer is borked and doesn't force the user to set this up automatically.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"As of Windows 7, the setup procedure asks the user for a name, and then gives them full admin rights, which is appalling. Admin mode should be used in exceptional circumstances only. (Yes, I know technically it's not an administrator account due to UAC, but UAC is so easy to circumvent!).
Name your first user account root. Give it a password. On your first login as root, create a standard user account, and log out. From now on, you run as a standard user, and when you actually need escalation of privileges a UAC password dialog pops up. This setup is exactly what UNIX does. The only difference is that the Windows installer is borked and doesn't force the user to set this up automatically. "

Not quite, there is a difference. When my Linux system requires escalation of privileges a password dialog does indeed pop up (one way or another), and I must supply a passwrod. I must type it in, and in order to do that, I must know the password. Presumably, I must be me.

On Windows as you described, the UAC prompt is merely a dialog box on which anyone at all may click the "Allow" button. It doesn't ask for a password to be entered.

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Not quite, there is a difference. When my Linux system requires escalation of privileges a password dialog does indeed pop up (one way or another), and I must supply a passwrod. I must type it in, and in order to do that, I must know the password. Presumably, I must be me.

On Windows as you described, the UAC prompt is merely a dialog box on which anyone at all may click the "Allow" button. It doesn't ask for a password to be entered.


Well Lunix does stupid things. When someone has physical access to a box, he owns that box, no matter if password is asked or not. What UAC does is let the user know that some program wants to access some resource.

Oh, and Lunix is secure by design. Someone Who Is Not Me, when was bored owned a lot of Lunix boxes by remote exploiting them. Is funny how Someone Who Is Not Me exploited those boxes, even if they had Selinux/Apparmor and another "advanced" security features enabled in the kernel, in a hastily manner.

I guess there aren't too many viruses on Lunix because of its inherent security and its huge success.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Wrong. If the account does not have admin privileges, UAC asks for a password.

Believe me, there's such a setup on my PC.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wrong. If the account does not have admin privileges, UAC asks for a password.

Believe me, there's such a setup on my PC.


No, right. If the account of person who logged on initially does have admin privileges (e.g. it was the first account created on that machine), then if that machine is left logged on by that person then anyone else can install anything, without knowing any password, merely by clicking the UAC "Allow" button at the appropriate moment.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh, I see what you're talking about now, but that's not what the OP was talking about. The OP's idea was to use the initial admin account to create a limited user account and then bury the admin account forever and never use it again.

Kind of like on Unices, where logging on as root is never, ever, recommended.

Reply Score: 1

Rob2011 Member since:
2011-06-02

Thanks, Yes, this was my point - Windows setup is borked (sorry not to be clearer, I should have just said that!). For a power user, who doesn't mind occasional prompts to enter the admin password, Windows 7 security model is OK (except for a few apps which require a full admin desktop session to update!). However, the vast majority of average computer users simply do what Windows setup tells them. Therefore malware writers can generally just assume the user is running as an admin UAC account, and so can use one of the techniques to bypass the UAC prompt and own the user's machine. Of course, if Microsoft enforced complex passwords, and refused to allow the desktop to run in admin mode, they would get loads of tech calls from users unable to remember their passwords - and this is probably why they don't have the guts to do this. However, I find it annoying that this basically makes malware so easy and profitable. I want Microsoft to destroy their business model dammit!
Of course, even restricting users to standard user accounts and requiring complex passwords will be inadequate - it would certainly help against the recent surge of Java and Adobe-based attacks. But malware writers would just get clever at cajoling users into entering their admin passwords. That's why I recommend more use of sandboxing as well.

Reply Score: 1

There's no windows!
by drcouzelis on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 13:11 UTC
drcouzelis
Member since:
2010-01-11

I just realized... As of Windows 8, Microsoft Windows won't use windows anymore. :-O Ten years from now, children will be asking, "Why is it called Windows?".

Reply Score: 5

RE: There's no windows!
by zombieChan on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 16:10 UTC in reply to "There's no windows!"
zombieChan Member since:
2010-10-20

It's still going to have Windows... You can use the Win7 UI still.

Reply Score: 1

KDE version of interface ?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:22 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

KDE4 is so configurable, I wonder how long it will be before there is setup that imitates windows 8.

Reply Score: 2

Censored!
by El_Exigente on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:26 UTC
El_Exigente
Member since:
2007-01-08

At about 00:39 into the video, you can see, on the extreme right side of the screen, two rows of illustrations posted on the wall. Notice though that they have been blurred during the video's post processing.

Odd, that they would have shot the video with the illustrations in "plain view" but then later decided that they should not be released.

Reply Score: 1

Windows 8 Sucks
by codewrangler on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:10 UTC
codewrangler
Member since:
2010-01-28

Wow! From what Microsoft is showing us so far, Windows 8 sucks. It seems like they are encouraging everyone to move to other OS platforms. I just can't make any sense of it.

Reply Score: 1

Hmm
by computrius on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:19 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

Am I the only one that absolutely hates this?

Why is everyone so hell bent on turning every computer into an over glorified web browser? I dont know if anyone has realized that computers can do things other than browse the web and look at photos.

Edited 2011-06-02 22:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm
by zombieChan on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 16:12 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
zombieChan Member since:
2010-10-20

Because it's easier for the casual user..

A casual user can do all their stuff in a web browser(Using MS Office Web App, Facebook, GMail, and their companies in house web apps).

Plus you can set it to be just like Win7, it's not going to be like ChromeOS.

Reply Score: 1

Have they thought this through?
by sdhays on Sat 4th Jun 2011 18:17 UTC
sdhays
Member since:
2007-03-13

Based on the demos, I'm not entirely convinced Microsoft has thought this through, although it's still early blah blah blah. The interface doesn't look bad for a tablet. The "ghetto" on the other hand is kind of bizarre. Why not have something more along the lines of what Apple did with its Classic environment? The integration there was pretty slick. The Classic apps were obviously not the new OS X apps, but they were reasonably full-class citizens that didn't require a ghetto or fully separate visual environment. You were able to manage Classic apps just like OS X apps. This suggests to me that MS's new interface isn't really suited to that type of usage (managing lots of windows with lots of information and widgets crammed into them), or at least will require substantial work by developers to re-invent the way a lot of work is done. If that's what they want to do and are successful, it could be very interesting, but right now, I have no idea how they envision dealing with these issues.

How does Microsoft envision productivity apps such as, oh I don't know, Microsoft Office, working with the new interface? What they've presented for desktop use is a toy and not serious; maybe they don't yet have sufficient polish to demo that. Right now, this is nothing more than an add-on, not a brave new redesign of Windows. And if it is supposed to be a brave new redesign, they're going to have to come up with something better than the ghetto to provide the bridge to the new world. The more I think about it, the stupider and lazier it sounds.

Thom, I think you're getting ahead of yourself with your excitement, unless you're just excited about Windows on a tablet, in which case, yeah, it's a serious step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 1