Linked by snydeq on Mon 3rd Dec 2012 14:57 UTC
Windows Desktop users deserve a significant rethink of the Windows 8 gaffes and omissions for the next version of Windows, writes InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard, offering 10 must-have features for Windows 9. From a "Get out of hell" modal dialog to prevent unwanted jumping to Metro, to a Control Panel that actually controls the kinds of things you would want a Control Panel to control, it's 'due time we diehards speak out.' What's your feedback for the Windows dev team as it puts together its Windows 9 (or "Windows Blue"?) specs.
Thread beginning with comment 544220
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Put the desktop back
by lucas_maximus on Tue 4th Dec 2012 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Put the desktop back"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Not everyone buys, uses or even cares about a Mac. And if I didn't buy a Mac, the last thing I would want is Mac behavior. That Mac minority made a conscious decision to have to deal with that dock and Apple's walled garden along with everything that comes with it; they can have it.


Windows 7 taskbar is a hybrid of the dock + the taskbar and that is one example. Like it or not Windows 7 is influenced by how a mac works ... Windows itself was created as a direct competitor to Macintosh.

So you really can't escape it.

Windows users have come to expect a proper application menu.


I rarely used it since XP, it isn't that important to Windows as you like to think.

To remove it practically overnight without having a grace period of even one release having it as an option is just wrong... especially when it is *your* OS that will end up being on the vast majority of new computers sold within only the first month or two of its release. It just reeks of pure marketing and arrogance in thinking they know better than what the customer/user wants.


Windows isn't the OS for you then. If you want to be able to customize everything easily move to *nix.

All monitors haven't just magically turned into expensive touchscreens overnight, so to replace the traditional menu system with one designed for portable touchscreen units is just a pathetic attempt to push more Windows OSes in areas where Android and iOS mops the floor with them. All while having absolutely no respect for the majority of Windows users (keyboard and mouse/trackpad) in the first place.


Funny I don't find any problems using it on dual 1680x1050 screens.

Try again.

Edited 2012-12-04 21:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Windows isn't the OS for you then. If you want to be able to customize everything easily move to *nix.

Which is exactly what I did back in 2006, around the time Vista was released (hint: not a coincidence). But the customization wasn't really one of the main reasons for switching.

Funny I don't find any problems using it on dual 1680x1050 screens.

I only said that the Start screen was specifically designed and optimized for touchscreens, not that it doesn't work at all without them. There is a difference.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Which is exactly what I did back in 2006, around the time Vista was released (hint: not a coincidence). But the customization wasn't really one of the main reasons for switching.


Oh goody for you. Unless you had ultra compelling reason to switch (you don't) ... please don't waste my time pretending to know how the latest Windows works.


I only said that the Start screen was specifically designed and optimized for touchscreens, not that it doesn't work at all without them. There is a difference.


So lets get this right. I just said something that invalidated your opinion on the subject because your statement is an opinion.

The Start screen clearly works because you can use it is. If you want to discuss usability studies that is a different subject entirely.

Edited 2012-12-04 23:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0