Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:00 UTC
Microsoft One of the major lacking features in the newest Office: no Metro applications. In fact, the only reason Windows RT has a desktop at all is because the Office team was unable to create Metro applications in time for the release of Windows RT. I often thought this was a classic case of two important divisions within Microsoft not getting along and not being aligned, but now that I have my own Surface RT, I'm starting to realise that there's a far simpler, and thus more likely, explanation: Metro is simply not ready for anything serious - or for anything at all, really.
Thread beginning with comment 554383
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
At least they look nice...
by bowkota on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:18 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

At least the Metro apps look nice while they're busy crashing, being slow, laggy etc. Who cares about usability when you have flat design?

As for early OS X, the only 'unusable' non-beta version was Cheetah. From Puma onwards it was more than usable. I have to endure Linux on an everyday basis for work so I think I'm a pretty good judge on usability.

Reply Score: 10

RE: At least they look nice...
by ssokolow on Wed 6th Mar 2013 20:09 in reply to "At least they look nice..."
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

As for early OS X, the only 'unusable' non-beta version was Cheetah. From Puma onwards it was more than usable. I have to endure Linux on an everyday basis for work so I think I'm a pretty good judge on usability.


A matter of taste somewhat. I personally think MacOS's usability took a nosedive with OSX and never fully recovered.

I run Lubuntu for my day-to-day work and find it very comfortable, but I still find myself looking fondly at the copy of System 7.5.3 (not even Platinum) running in my BasiliskII.

Instability and cooperative multitasking aside, the UI just had so much work put into it before Jobs started making changes by fiat.

Reply Parent Score: 5

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

Instability and cooperative multitasking aside, the UI just had so much work put into it before Jobs started making changes by fiat.


Other way around. OSX was NextStep. Jobs didn't remove things from Mac OS, he gradually added them back from Mac OS to OSX. Until there came a point where people had been living for years without certain Classic features and no one complained about them missing ( except john siracusa and you), so they stopped.

Stability and multitasking are much more important than the neat little UI flourishes that Mac OS had.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kryogenix Member since:
2008-01-06


A matter of taste somewhat. I personally think MacOS's usability took a nosedive with OSX and never fully recovered.


To a degree I think you're right. MacOS Classic had a very simple, elegant, sensible UI.

I think they should have simply refined the initial pre-aqua MacOS X Server release. It was more Mac-like but still had the NeXT awesomeness under the hood.


Instability and cooperative multitasking aside, the UI just had so much work put into it before Jobs started making changes by fiat.


Some changes weren't so bad. I liked the addition of the NeXT-style dock. The interface decorations were terribly ugly until 10.5. They made it look like a child's toy but the underlying concepts were great.

Nobody was complaining about the MacOS GUI in those days, it was the crufty OS underneath we wanted gone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: At least they look nice...
by mrstep on Thu 7th Mar 2013 00:38 in reply to "At least they look nice..."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

I took a look at Surface/WinRT at the Microsoft store nearby... Launching Office sure enough dropped to the desktop, which was a bit awkward if you think you're using a tablet, and then I tried to launch Kindle to see how crisp the display is with sub-pixel AA, and... BAM! Tried again... BAM! Just launches and immediate crashes.

Not a top-notch demo setup for people wandering in to take a look in any case.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: At least they look nice...
by Laurence on Thu 7th Mar 2013 08:34 in reply to "At least they look nice..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I have to endure Linux on an everyday basis for work so I think I'm a pretty good judge on usability.

I installed Linux on my work PC as I was sick of having to "endure" Windows on a daily basis.

I guess your definition of usability is actually just user preference.

Edited 2013-03-07 08:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 14

bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

"I have to endure Linux on an everyday basis for work so I think I'm a pretty good judge on usability.

I installed Linux on my work PC as I was sick of having to "endure" Windows on a daily basis.

I guess your definition of usability is actually just user preference.
"

Obviously yeah I'm just speaking for my self (and quite a few of my fellow colleagues). We use Linux because it's obviously better suited for our work and it's awesome at that. However for anything else it's a bit of a hassle.

Reply Parent Score: 4