Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Feb 2012 11:39 UTC, submitted by RichterKuato
Windows Metro is beautiful and elegant. It works wonders on my HTC HD7, and I'm pretty darn sure it's going to work just many wonders on tablets later this year. However, Microsoft also expects us to use Windows 8's Metro on our desktops with mice and keyboards - and in that scenario, I can't really see it work any wonders. The Verge user Sputnik8 decided to see what Metro would look like applied to a more regular desktop. The results are... Stunning.
Thread beginning with comment 508724
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Less is Less
by deathshadow on Mon 27th Feb 2012 20:07 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Again I can see the Photoshop jockeys who sit around circle-jerking over designs on "template monster" cheering how wonderful this is...

But my question ends up why is it that every generation of UI since windows 98 has been LESS useful 'out of box' than what came before it... There's a reason I consider win98 the pinnacle of UI design when it came to actually being USEFUL, and everything else since is just rubbish. Very PRETTY rubbish, but as another poster already pointed out, where's the USEFUL parts of the UI like say, a tree? No matter how big a can of shellac you dump on a pile, it's still a turd covered turd.

It all started with hiding extensions, then hiding the actual directory path, and it just gets further and further dumbed down to the point where it's ultimately useless. It's like websites where some artsy fartsy type vomited up a pretty picture in photoshop, barely bothered slicing it up and slapped it up online calling it a website. Sure, it's very pretty, but what good is it?

You can see it in action in those screencaps -- all the massive white-space putting less and less information on the screen, until there's nothing useful there. I mean do we REALLY need the top 90 pixels of every window chewed up by the icon and program title area? I didn't go out and buy a 24" 1920x1200 display to fit less information on it than I did under windows 3.0 at 640x480!

But what do I know, I get pissed every time I open a directory and it's not in "details" view and instead is filled with a five or six idiotic icons I can barely tell apart (or worse are all the same), with maybe six or seven files fitting in the window... it's like with every Windows version I keep having to go through and turn off all the new idiotic 'improvements' to get back to what was actually useful.

Though at least with Windows I can dial back the clock, unlike say... linsux where if you want the latest version, you're basically stuck with whatever goofy/pointless change the artsy fartsy types came up with to waste time on instead of fixing actual functionality issues.

Probably why IMHO the various Linux desktops are less useful than Windows 3.1 file manager was (apart from perhaps the long filename support).

Edited 2012-02-27 20:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1