Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Dec 2013 22:43 UTC
Windows

Two changes supposedly coming to the next version of Windows, according to veteran Paul Thurrott:

Metro apps running in windows on the desktop. As you can today with third-party utilities such as ModernMix, the next version of Windows will let users optionally run Metro apps in floating windows on the desktop.

Start menu. After bringing back the Start button in Windows 8.1, Microsoft will take the next logical step in the next Windows version and make the Start menu available as an option. It's possible this will appear only on those product versions that support the desktop.

This would be Microsoft admitting they got Windows 8 all wrong.

Order by: Score:
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

If they only admit it now... they're the last ones to do so.

Edited 2013-12-09 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Yeah they were under the impression that to get people to use their product, they had to make it utterly horrible to use.

Also the fact that they had no confidence in metro. If they had any confidence in metro applications they would have allowed them to be used in a completely integrated fashion and succeed based on their own merits.

Reply Score: 13

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

If they only admit it now... they're the last ones to do so.


Personally i like the Metro on the tablet, but on the desktop its "all wrong".

It's hard to believe that a decision was made to go All-In on Metro with Microsoft failing understanding the enormous risk they were taking with their most important product.

However on the other hand, the Modern style development has now clearly superseded the past and is established. You can even see its signature iOS and Android. So i guess in hindsight it does take some pain and risky decision's to move the field forward.

Reply Score: 2

jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

However on the other hand, the Modern style development has now clearly superseded the past and is established. You can even see its signature iOS and Android. So i guess in hindsight it does take some pain and risky decision's to move the field forward.


I wouldn't describe that influence as a move forward though... YMMV.

Edited 2013-12-10 12:25 UTC

Reply Score: 5

CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

However on the other hand, the Modern style development has now clearly superseded the past and is established. You can even see its signature iOS and Android. So i guess in hindsight it does take some pain and risky decision's to move the field forward.


I know another OS once sold by MS that allowed me to use just a single application at a time (or multiple ones in a very awkward way), full of square widgets with aberrant colors and always in fullscreen. It was called "MS DOS".

The so called modern application is a step back, not forward. It is a paradigm created to be used by smartphones back in a time that their hardware barely managed to smoothly run a single application in a appealing way to their public (full of fluid animations in a high resolution display).

By all intents and purposes, this style of applications denies 30 year of evolution done in desktop computers. We near killed yourselves working to create computers capable to run multiple graphical applications simultaneously, so we can increase the productivity, just to have all this evolution thrown in the garbage so kiddies could have blinking animated applications with huge cool typography to play.

I'm still to see a application that follow this "Modern UI paradigm" capable to do serious work in real life environments, like a home office or a business. This paradigm works great for twitter clients, but when you do have to keep open a SAP, a IDE, 5 spreadsheets, a couple of text documents, a chat window with our co-workers, access network shares and keep all files organized, nothing beats the good old stacked window.

The Modern UI failed to conceive the most basic functionally on desktop computers: do real job.

Reply Score: 13

This would be superb
by abdavidson on Tue 10th Dec 2013 01:04 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really hope that Thurrott is right.

Windows 8 never made sense on a non-touch desktop product. Having that daft Start Screen on my 2 24" monitors (where those hot corners were a non-useable nightmare) was rubbish. The amount - and type - of pointer movement required was terrible. Large sweeping movements followed by fine fiddly difficult ones.

It was such a headstrong move to make it non-optional. They would have lost nothing and KEPT headshare by putting the Start Menu as an option (default or not) instead of Start Screen on Desktop... so so obvious. I said it from the very first developer preview that they'd got it wrong but hoped they were keeping the Start Menu away to force the development world to work with Metro before adding back the options with the final release.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing if this is borne out when it is released. My PC which remains Windows 7 might get an update (there are still useability issues with the W8 desktop... white and pale grey window headers?) and the MBA I bought after seeing Windows 8 might end up my only OSX machine.

Edited 2013-12-10 01:06 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: This would be superb
by Kochise on Tue 10th Dec 2013 06:13 UTC in reply to "This would be superb"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"This would be Microsoft admitting they got Windows 8 all wrong."

Of course Microsoft is not, after all they invested so much research into this product to make it perfect. It's just that... users are so wrong. Fix the users !

Kochise

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: This would be superb
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 10th Dec 2013 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: This would be superb"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Marga.FP


Suddenly it, makes a little sense why most of your posts are signed Kochise.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: This would be superb
by Kochise on Tue 10th Dec 2013 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This would be superb"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

That's why I sign my post when I share my computer. Though I was not expected to share my OSnews account as well. While the misattributed input was yet appreciated, the impudent was indeed thoroughly chastened.

Kochise

Edited 2013-12-10 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v Does Microsoft still make windows?
by Nikato on Tue 10th Dec 2013 01:52 UTC
Not ALL wrong
by WorknMan on Tue 10th Dec 2013 02:08 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't think they got it ALL wrong. I'm not sure that having the option to run your tablet apps on a desktop is such a bad thing, and is something I desperately wish I had with Android. I don't ALWAYS want to use browser apps and/or depend on some janky browser extension or bloated Win32 app for desktop notifications.

So yes, Metro DOES have its place on the desktop. Where they screwed up was trying to make it the entire OS ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not ALL wrong
by Laurence on Tue 10th Dec 2013 09:36 UTC in reply to "Not ALL wrong"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

To be honest, I think Metro was a mistake on any device. Having used a Windows Phone for a few months, I found it one of the most horrible and counter intuitive mobile OSs I've used since the days of Samsung's pre-Android dumb phones.

Half the time I can't tell which widget is interactive and which are purely informative because buttons look like textboxes which look like coloured boarders; and Hyperlinks look like normal text. Then you have the mass of nondescript monochrome icons without any labels, leaving me guessing what their purpose is. Yet weirdly the application menus on that thing go completely the other way and places too much importance on text and not enough on the icon; which makes it a nightmare to quickly find anything if you're dyslexic (like I am). And the horrible side swipe to view additional hidden panels on any given application means you're never quite sure where anything is.

I really wanted to like Windows Phone because it was so very different from the masses of samey smart phone OSs, but I ended up feeling confused and lost for 99% of the time I was using my Nokia Lumia; before eventually I came to the conclusion that Metro was just one big usability fuck up.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Not ALL wrong
by WorknMan on Tue 10th Dec 2013 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Not ALL wrong"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

To be honest, I think Metro was a mistake on any device. Having used a Windows Phone for a few months, I found it one of the most horrible and counter intuitive mobile OSs I've used since the days of Samsung's pre-Android dumb phones.


*shrug* I don't have a clue, since I've never used it on a mobile device. But a lot of people seem to love it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not ALL wrong
by cdude on Wed 11th Dec 2013 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not ALL wrong"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

~97% of people, so near everybody, does not buy it. Microsoft had more success and market share with the old Windows CE. That tells you something.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not ALL wrong
by WorknMan on Fri 13th Dec 2013 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not ALL wrong"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Microsoft had more success and market share with the old Windows CE. That tells you something.


That tells me that the iPhone wasn't out back then, or virtually noone would've bothered with Windows CE ;)

And its probably not Metro that's keeping people off of WP, as much as the lack of apps, and Apple's slick marketing department.

Edited 2013-12-13 19:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

gigaxbyte80
Member since:
2013-10-19

Enough already... get rid of Ribbons in Office !
I want my pull down menues...

Reply Score: 2

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

The ribbons in Outlook are fantastic at hiding commonly used functionality, forcing you to poke around at different "tabs" in the ribbon toolbar. I sometimes just find it easier to use OWA.

Reply Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it doesn't. The old office interface I remember using a lot when I was at uni had everything stacked 4 levels deep in some random dialog box.

It was rubbish. Now stuff is logically grouped under tabs ... if you don't understand how to use tabs (been on the web for how long), please don't use a computer.

Reply Score: 1

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

No it doesn't. The old office interface I remember using a lot when I was at uni had everything stacked 4 levels deep in some random dialog box.


It's most likely grouped the same way in the ribbon interface. Only now it's a huge mess on each tab..


It was rubbish. Now stuff is logically grouped under tabs ... if you don't understand how to use tabs (been on the web for how long), please don't use a computer.


Does this translate into: If you don't follow the ms way please dont use a computer?

Reply Score: 8

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's most likely grouped the same way in the ribbon interface. Only now it's a huge mess on each tab..


No it isn't, this is a screenshot from my PC of Word 2007:

http://i.imgur.com/1pF9gS3.png?1

Each item is logically grouped, each set of insert types are grouped by type and are clearly labelled. You can see it in the screenshot. Each grouping is self evident.

Maybe if you can't read it would be a problem.

Does this translate into: If you don't follow the ms way please dont use a computer?


Oh comon. Tabs are hardly Microsoft centric, as I previously said they have been on the web easily for the last 10 years. It is a well known.

Reply Score: 4

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


No it isn't, this is a screenshot from my PC of Word 2007:

http://i.imgur.com/1pF9gS3.png?1

Each item is logically grouped, each set of insert types are grouped by type and are clearly labelled. You can see it in the screenshot. Each grouping is self evident.

Maybe if you can't read it would be a problem.


So you find the one clean one and make claims from that one? Look at the home tab and tell me thats clean.


Oh comon. Tabs are hardly Microsoft centric, as I previously said they have been on the web easily for the last 10 years. It is a well known.


I have only seen this Ribbon failure on microsoft systems. There are tabs in my browser yes but it os not nearly as complex as a wysisg text editor

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So you find the one clean one and make claims from that one? Look at the home tab and tell me thats clean.


Statement made previously:

It's most likely grouped the same way in the ribbon interface. Only now it's a huge mess on each tab..


I can't win with you guys, the home tab:

http://i.imgur.com/YkP7VXu.png

You will notice:

* Font settings and style is in the font grouping
* Paragraphs settings and style is in the paragraph grouping
* Style settings are in the Styles group.

I could go on for every grouping ... but I won't.

Again each section is clearly labelled, and everything is logically grouped.

Compare this to Word 2003:

http://www.mokonamodoki.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/word03_files...

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would think the Word 2007 ribbon interface isn't logical and well thought compared to what was there before.

If you are going to blather on about familiarity, as far as I am concerned it is fifth monkey effect.

http://jeffhurt.com/monkey.html

Edited 2013-12-10 13:23 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

If you are going to blather on about familiarity, as far as I am concerned it is fifth monkey effect.

Agreed. You've gotten so use to arguing that MS is perfect and so used to defending their cluster-f--ks that you can't even remember why it is that you like them. You just defend them because you've always defended them.

For what it's worth, I hate the ribbon bar too. Whether it's because I'm used to the old menu based system or whether it's because ribbon really is a mess - the fact remains that I can never find a sodding thing in any of the applications that use ribbon yet I can find stuff quickly in any menu based application even when I've not used it in years. So as far as I'm concerned, ribbon slows productivity and raises my stress levels - which much means ribbon fails to address the fundamental problems it set out to solve.

Edited 2013-12-10 14:12 UTC

Reply Score: 6

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The problem with the ribbon is that you have 4 (if not more) different sizes of icons. Some sections have 1 row, some 2 rows, some 3 rows of icons, all next to each other, with different vertical spacing. Some sections have icons linked together, others have them separated by whitespace. Some sections have drop-downs mixed in with icons. All with multiple different fonts being used.

IOW, it's visual vomit, and very hard to pick anything out without slowly reading every ... single ... icon ... over ... and ... over ... trying to find something.

And, it's all animated. Things move around when you click and hover and drag.

If there were 2 sizes of icons, and 2 rows per section, and proper spacing and alignment, and 1 font type/size, then maybe the ribbon would be useful.

Reply Score: 3

Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Okay, another ribbon hater here.

I used to have a single icon bar with the features I used the most, it occupied less area than the ribbon. Dynamic toolbars appeared as needed (for drawing,...).

My issues with the ribbon:
- Poor discoverability and organisation. There are many places to click and hidden dialogboxes and menus. For example : How to set the grid in PowerPoint ? There are both old style dialogboxes and pop-down non modal fields. Inconsistent.
- Hardcoded. Non user configurable. Many people use Office with all sort of crazy macros, which cannot be inserted gracefully into that bloody ribbon.
- Terrible when the width of the application is reduced. New, unfamiliar and useless icons appears...
- Word: Stylesheets. Braindamaged. Encourages modifying letters instead of setting styles.
- Bad for keyboard navigation. Microsoft never helped to learn key sequences.

There are many other issues I won't bother detailing.

The right click popupmenu and icons are really a missed opportunity. IMHO, Microsoft should have made the icon set of this menu user configurable and dynamic. For the remaining functions, menus, and text search of commands...

Reply Score: 4

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06



Statement made previously:

"It's most likely grouped the same way in the ribbon interface. Only now it's a huge mess on each tab..


I can't win with you guys, the home tab:

http://i.imgur.com/YkP7VXu.png

You will notice:

* Font settings and style is in the font grouping
* Paragraphs settings and style is in the paragraph grouping
* Style settings are in the Styles group.

I could go on for every grouping ... but I won't.

Again each section is clearly labelled, and everything is logically grouped.

Compare this to Word 2003:

http://www.mokonamodoki.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/word03_files...

I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would think the Word 2007 ribbon interface isn't logical and well thought compared to what was there before.
"

Look at the pictures again and tell me which picture is the cleanest. Why would i want to look at stuff i am not gonna use? Lets say i would like to do a heading (styles). Then i can not see the relevans of the other 4 items



If you are going to blather on about familiarity, as far as I am concerned it is fifth monkey effect.

http://jeffhurt.com/monkey.html


No i am leaving Windows behind...

The reason i do not like the ribbon is that it's a huge mess when people like my self only use office 2-3 times a month.

Reply Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

No it doesn't. The old office interface I remember using a lot when I was at uni had everything stacked 4 levels deep in some random dialog box.

It was rubbish. Now stuff is logically grouped under tabs ... if you don't understand how to use tabs (been on the web for how long), please don't use a computer.


Yes, the MS Office menus were a mess, with options hidden in weird places.

However, not every office suite had that issue. Nor did every application have that issue.

Replacing a b0rked imlementation of a good idea (hierarchical menus) with a b0rked implementation of a bad idea (ribbon) is not progress.

Replacing a b0rked implementation of a good idea with a good implementation of a good idea is progress.

I really miss the smart dialogs that Lotus SmartSuite used. And I really miss the nice menus that WordPerfect used. It's too bad neither of those are available on Linux, or for under $100 on Windows (still using WordPerfect 2000 on my Windows installs).

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Everyone talks about it being borked as a fact when it is their opinion.

So I dispute that it is borked. I have never seen any data to support the notion.

Reply Score: 3

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Everyone talks about it being borked as a fact when it is their opinion.

So I dispute that it is borked. I have never seen any data to support the notion.

You talk about it being fine as a fact when it is your opinion

So I dispute that it is fine. I have never seen any data to support the notion.

Edited 2013-12-11 01:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You are really upset aren't you?

Look you can do clever parodies all you like. The point is that there is no data i.e. statistical data you can link that says the Office Ribbon has bad usability.

I have said this in the other comment tree, I am quite willing to look at data that doesn't support my opinion. There has been none presented by you or anyone else.

Edited 2013-12-11 01:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You are really upset aren't you?

No. Why would I be? I'm just making the point that you're not even playing by your own rules.


Look you can do clever parodies all you like. The point is that there is no data i.e. statistical data you can link that says the Office Ribbon has bad usability.

So post some data that says the Office ribbon has good usability.

Anecdotal or not, we've at least cited reasons why we don't like it. Meanwhile you've not presented any reasons as to why you don't think the ribbon bar isn't total garbage.


I have said this in the other comment tree, I am quite willing to look at data that doesn't support my opinion. There has been none presented by you or anyone else.

How about the number of people in this topic who've complained about it vs the number of people (ie just you) who've defended it :p

But as I said earlier; I don't need to prove a personal preference any more than anecdotally. Which is still more than you've proven any of the points that you've been arguing.

Edited 2013-12-11 01:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The ribbons in Outlook are fantastic at hiding commonly used functionality, forcing you to poke around at different "tabs" in the ribbon toolbar. I sometimes just find it easier to use OWA.



Just spend a few hours using the Eclipse based Lotus Notes and you will be crying for Outlook in no time.

Reply Score: 9

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I wish I could gave you an enormous mod up, so big is my Lotus Notes hatred.

The only people who love Lotus Notes are people who inflict bodily harm on themselves when they're in a good mood.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

It is our corporate mail system. ;)

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I feel your pain.

We had it in 1998, but we got rid to it. In 2008 we merged with another company and we got it back. We were all very upset. I used the Mac and Linux versions, but they were even worse than the Windows one.

The Mac version kept crashing and the Linux version, which also crashed a lot, kept breaking with each update despite me using Ubuntu and Notes on Ubuntu being "supported".

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

When we got acquired the parent company had Notes as corporate email.

So we had to move away from Outlook to Notes.

Everyone that used to hate Outlook misses it deeply.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by stabbyjones
by stabbyjones on Tue 10th Dec 2013 02:31 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

I have to admit that I actually like 8.1 better than 8 after building a new desktop image for sccm.

That said though, metro apps are *still* a waste of time, space and effort. running them in any situation is completely pointless.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ronaldst
by ronaldst on Tue 10th Dec 2013 09:21 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

> "This would be Microsoft admitting they got Windows 8 all wrong."

This is more of a rumour.

Windows 8 is still incomplete. And most apps (99% of them) are terrible or have below features parity with their previous equivalent on the desktop. Older Windows Live apps versus their newer equivalent Metro apps.

There are still no worthwhile apps out there. And still no complex Metro app made for showcase.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by ronaldst
by Adurbe on Tue 10th Dec 2013 10:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by ronaldst"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually I blame the developers for the incompleteness of the apps themselves.

Modern UI and Windows 8 themselves are complete. The issue is that the devs who have focused on it have built apps that belong on a phone and wonder why they are not useful on the desktop...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by ebasconp on Tue 10th Dec 2013 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Actually I blame the developers for the incompleteness of the apps themselves.


I do not blame them: They are busy improving their apps for Android/iOS (where the market share and the money are) instead of writing stuff for Metro.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by ronaldst on Tue 10th Dec 2013 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Sadly, Microsoft is doing the same. Their Android/iOS apps are better. They even have Remote Desktop on those platforms. My Lumia 820 will get it some day.

Apparently sorting photos in their Windows 8 Photo app isn't necessary. And POP3 is too much to ask for the Mail app. Most included apps are garbage. I doubt anyone at Microsoft even uses Metro apps.

The navigating with a mouse issues aren't fixed. Auto-hide panels weren't a good idea in '95. They're surely not any good now.

Also I am sick of horizontal panning/scrolling apps. I hope the one who added it to the UI guideline gets punched in the nuts or the ovaries.

There's is only one camp to blame: Microsoft.

Reply Score: 6

Silver Lining...
by codewrangler on Tue 10th Dec 2013 18:02 UTC
codewrangler
Member since:
2010-01-28

At least they are willing to move off their soapbox and respond to their customers concerns. That probably wouldn't have happened in the past.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Silver Lining...
by zima on Sun 15th Dec 2013 10:34 UTC in reply to "Silver Lining..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They listened while discarding MS Bob...

Reply Score: 2