Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 22:04 UTC
Windows So, I've been using the Windows 8 Release Preview since it came out, almost exclusively (except for work, since I'm obviously not going to rely on unfinished and untested software for that). I already knew I could get into Metro on my 11.6" ZenBook, but on my 24" desktop, things aren't looking as rosy. Here's an illustrated guide of the most pressing issues I run into, and five suggestions to address them. Instead of just complaining, let's get constructive.
Thread beginning with comment 520600
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by gmlongo
by Alfman on Mon 4th Jun 2012 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by gmlongo"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

UZ64,

"Ever wonder why newspapers are divided into so many narrow columns? Hell, even magazines for that matter? Think about it..."

You beat me to it!

When redshift said "Even if OS news were coded to take up the full screen.... I don't want 24" of it on my desktop." I was thinking the exact same thing.

Widescreen pages of non-wrapping text are extremely difficult to follow because the eyes begin loosing track of individual lines. The newspaper layout may seem somewhat arbitrary but it turns out to be much easier to read that way.

In any case, what's with all these prohibitions against letting users have a choice in the matter? Thom is right, these restrictions are insane particularly on large screen desktops. The reality is widescreens are useful specifically to place side by side. If the OS imposes such arbitrary restrictions as metro does, then it defeats the point in having a widescreen monitor in the first place.

Anyone taking bets on whether microsoft is going to jump out of the curtains on win8's release yelling "Surprise! We were just kidding guys, the look on all your faces is priceless. We really had you all going didn't we?"

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 4th Jun 2012 05:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gmlongo"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Yep. Exactly. I just wish high-res 16:10 screens were easier to come by, but unfortunately they seem to be succumbing to inferior (for non-multimedia/video computer usage) "high definition" 16x9 displays (which, IMO, belong only in the living room to watch your TV and movies and play your home console video games on). But unfortunately, they're infesting every single device type being developed. All in the name of "multimedia" with the convenient buzzword "HD". ;)

Gotta love bullshit buzzwords like "HD" stealing our vertical resolution--which, in my opinion, is the most important of all for computer work. So what if tiny bars are shown on the top and bottom of the screen while playing HD videos? You barely even notice them, if you even notice them at all.

In the end--I'll take more vertical space and less horizontal space for my reading pleasure, thanks. It's much easier on the eye, and is actually possible to read. Just imaging a giant book that is not separated into columns... that would be so difficult to read it's not even funny.

Edited 2012-06-04 05:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by zima on Mon 4th Jun 2012 07:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

high-res 16:10 screens [...] succumbing to inferior [...] "high definition" 16x9 displays

Such really high res (more than 1080p, I presume) screens were always "succumbing" to "inferior" types - in the past to much more inferior types, actually.

The situation is much better than it used to be; be happy that the "HD" means widespread popularisation of quite high res screens, that you can have them very inexpensively, funded by economies of scale (which also makes large multimon setups much more accessible; plus if one monitor in such setup is rotated 90 degrees...).

And if you want to go higher than that - well, such screens were always hard to come by, and expensive. So pay up, don't expect people "subsidizing" those just yet - they're happy with HD, so that's what production is geared for.
Alternatively, wait a short decade or so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDTV (but I bet some will still be complaining in a similar way)

Edited 2012-06-04 07:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by JPowers on Mon 4th Jun 2012 13:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
JPowers Member since:
2007-11-10

I'm a developer and vertical space is very import.

My main screen is a ViewSonic VP2365WB in 1080x1920 mode. Any 80/20 split would need to be a top/bottom split or things would just look ugly and useless.

I also find this mode ideal for web browsing since I can see most of the page. It's also great for doing word processing work.

I've yet to see a review from someone running Metro on a widescreen monitor running in portrait mode.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by ndrw on Tue 5th Jun 2012 16:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Which is why iPad feels so usable. A screen of an "equivalent" 1366x768 laptop just doesn't cut it.

I often argue against Apple (in fact, I own 0 of their products) but I like that they can take step back and look how the technology fits a normal person before designing a device. Others seem follow the rule "more is better", which is not even true (sometimes "more"="still not enough" or "more"="pointless").

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo
by lucas_maximus on Mon 4th Jun 2012 10:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gmlongo"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Way to not understand Elastic/Responsive Design. You are supposed to put new content in the empty space and/or increase the text size to suit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 4th Jun 2012 10:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Way to not understand Elastic/Responsive Design. You are supposed to put new content in the empty space and/or increase the text size to suit.


That's ridiculous. Optimal line length is only about ~12 words, based on the arch the human eye can optimally scan without straining other muscles at average eye-desktop display distance. Increasing the font size to maintain this optimal line length at 1920pix width would require 36pix font height - which is pure insanity.

Adding additional content is easier said than done. Sure, you can fill up the whitespace with pointless junk like stock images or enlarged quotes, but they add absolutely nothing to the reading experience. Multiple columns, as some suggested, is unworkable as well, since it would require weird up/down eye movements, and would generally looks like ass.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo
by Dave_K on Tue 5th Jun 2012 01:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gmlongo"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Widescreen pages of non-wrapping text are extremely difficult to follow because the eyes begin loosing track of individual lines. The newspaper layout may seem somewhat arbitrary but it turns out to be much easier to read that way.


Agreed. I'm amazed that some people don't get this.

On my 27" monitor browser windows typically use about 60% of the screen width. For some sites, such as those displaying large pictures, I'll maximise the window, but more often I find myself reducing the width even further.

Even spanning 60% of the screen width I find that a big block of text can be uncomfortable to read. I'll shrink it down so that the text width isn't any greater than it'd be in a paperback book. To me that makes a significant difference to my speed and enjoyment when reading.

I do the same in ebook readers, text editors, PDF viewers, and anything else where I'll be reading more than a page or two of text. Even for the simple task of consuming written words I'd find Metro's full screen limitations annoying and uncomfortable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by zima on Sun 10th Jun 2012 23:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm amazed that some people don't get another thing...

Those who point out it's a "fault" of OSNews layout don't really propose "widescreen pages of non-wrapping text" as an alternative - but more, say, a multi-column (more than 2) layout, as is typical in "wide" print magazines.

Edited 2012-06-10 23:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2