Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Oct 2013 10:16 UTC
Windows

Manual window management is awful. Windows 8 ditched windows in favor of fullscreen apps. Traditional desktop window paradigms are powerful but obsolete.

Windows 9 unifies previous contrasting paradigms, taking design cues from all platforms and recent innovations.

Just an unofficial design concept, but damn, this is sexy. This is exactly what Windows needs - a combination of the old and new, leading to something seemingly far more usable than the monstrosity that is Metro in Windows 8.

Thread beginning with comment 573726
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by dpJudas
by dpJudas on Wed 2nd Oct 2013 11:10 UTC
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Ah yes, the kind of thing that look pretty on pictures but functions poorly in the real world.

Stacking application windows horizontally with a swipe left/right for app switching is barely tolerable on small screen devices, and now this should be a viable replacement for real windows on my 30" monitor?

I also strongly disagree with the statement from the article that traditional window management should in any way be obsolete. It is a paradigm that has worked well and successfully for over 30 years, and its only real disadvantage is that it doesn't scale well to small screen devices.

Reply Score: 20

RE: Comment by dpJudas
by AndyB on Wed 2nd Oct 2013 12:05 in reply to "Comment by dpJudas"
AndyB Member since:
2013-03-22

It is a paradigm that has worked well and successfully for over 30 years, and its only real disadvantage is that it doesn't scale well to small screen devices.

Are you sure about this? I remember windows 3.1 running in 640x480 screen resolution on 12" or less monitors quite well. Amiga's could go down to 320x200, but I admit you couldn't open many windows without overlapping them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dpJudas
by drcouzelis on Wed 2nd Oct 2013 14:26 in reply to "RE: Comment by dpJudas"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

I remember windows 3.1 running in 640x480 screen resolution on 12" or less monitors quite well. Amiga's could go down to 320x200, but I admit you couldn't open many windows without overlapping them.

Of course you are correct, but it still doesn't scale to "small screen devices" that are not only half the size of what you mention (6") but also have an input (touch screen / finger) that can't handle pixel-precise input like a mouse can.

EDIT: ...but this article is kind of about desktop operating systems... But kind of not... I'm sorry, I don't even know what we're talking about any more. ;)

Edited 2013-10-02 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by dpJudas
by dpJudas on Wed 2nd Oct 2013 16:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by dpJudas"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Are you sure about this? I remember windows 3.1 running in 640x480 screen resolution on 12" or less monitors quite well. Amiga's could go down to 320x200, but I admit you couldn't open many windows without overlapping them.

Well, there are two individual factors in this: input device and physical (not resolution) size.

My experience is that when a screen is really large (typically above 24"), it stops making sense to maximize most applications because you just get more margin and padding. So here non-maximized windows are king.

Then there is there the range between 24" and approx 14", where most people seem to prefer maximizing their apps, with a few select exceptions like mp3 apps and instant messengers. Below 14" it gets increasingly difficult to find any type of application that doesn't need every inch it can get.

And then there is the input device factor. A fingertip needs a lot bigger area (in millimeters) for a button than a mouse cursor does. This greatly reduces how many elements you can place in a tablet or phone screen, making windows even less useful for small screens.

For those reasons, in my opinion, you always need different user interfaces for phones, tablets and the desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 7