|
One OS to rule them all...
I don't see this working as intended. If they manage to pull it off, I'll be one of the first to clap and congratulate them.
But, considering how badly they screwed up with Windows 8, i see this just going downhill.
I'm sticking with Windows 7 until they discontinue support for it, and then I'm switching to Linux and SteamOS.
My question is... How?
Linux has survived for quite a while now, without any kind of support from Big Comp. If they want to get rid of it, that's going to take some pretty bad legislation by now, which in turn would only give them a serious backlash.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.
And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heads of the department don't really give a damn. One of the reasons win8 had that godawful start menu was because the heads of MS use mostly tablets and cannot comprehend that most of the people use PCs, and that PCs are here to stay.
And you know all of this because you work there, or what?
As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.
All systems sharing the same operating system does not mean all systems sharing the same user interface.
My question is... How?
Linux has survived for quite a while now, without any kind of support from Big Comp. If they want to get rid of it, that's going to take some pretty bad legislation by now, which in turn would only give them a serious backlash.
They're not talking about hedging out the competition and making everyone use Windows. That would be monopolistic, and Microsoft has (I should hope) learned their lesson there. Instead, they're talking about shifting from a multi-platform model (currently Windows Phone 8, Windows RT, and Windows 8) to a single-platform model (just Windows).
As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.
I don't disagree that, on your end, you wouldn't want to work CAD all day on a tablet, but perhaps you don't see the bounty it might provide for production. I'm building a comprehensive report that shows use of mobile tech, travelling along with the object (right now it's practically a ream of paperwork) opens up feasibility and communication. Perhaps there's an error in the print? Instead of going to the supervisor, the supervisor calling the engineer, the engineer having to be available, answer the question back downhill to production, a simple real-time message could be sent, the digital print annotated and revised at a later point when the engineer's available at a desktop environment.
As far as homogenizing operating systems, I don't see it too far off simply because we all use the same hardware anyway. Obviously Microsoft thinks they're going to be king of that hill, and I think that's where they're clueless. Apple and Microsoft are literally in operating systems to dumb down computer use for the least capable to do so. The complexity of what computers do, however, is steadily increasing, requiring something more like Linux, where the OS can be modded to support specific operations, appearance, etc.
I have Win8 as well and the first thing I did was install new programs so I wouldn't have to use the wretched metro stuff. Classic Shell, WinAmp, heck I even went back and got the old Windows Photo Gallery program for opening images.
Speaking as a Systems Developer, there will never be 1 platform in the corporate world. It just can't happen. I have users running Mac, Win XP, Windows 7, Red Hat Enterprise 6, Red Hat Enterprise 4, Fedora Core 4, Arch Linux, and one poor bastard with a Win 95/Red Hat 2 system for legacy systems. Add that to the fact that it would cost a large company millions to recompile all of their in house software to even begin to run on Windows 8. Yeah Microsoft is making a play in the consumer space but their big customers won't touch 8 with a 10 foot pole. I'm betting the next iteration of the OS will look a whole lot like 7 or you will see a product divergence one "Enterprise Edition" which will function like 7 and a "Home" edition which will look and function like 8.
|
|
As far as user interfaces are involved, unifying the desktop and mobile environment is simply stupid. I'm not using my CAD the same way I'm fiddling with my tablet, get over it once and for all.
Head of departments may disagree, but that's because they know jack$#!& about drawing with CAD software for hours on. Try doing that on a mobile touchscreen device, you monkey.And this is true for a hundred other professional softwares.
I don't disagree that, on your end, you wouldn't want to work CAD all day on a tablet, but perhaps you don't see the bounty it might provide for production. I'm building a comprehensive report that shows use of mobile tech, travelling along with the object (right now it's practically a ream of paperwork) opens up feasibility and communication. Perhaps there's an error in the print? Instead of going to the supervisor, the supervisor calling the engineer, the engineer having to be available, answer the question back downhill to production, a simple real-time message could be sent, the digital print annotated and revised at a later point when the engineer's available at a desktop environment.
As far as homogenizing operating systems, I don't see it too far off simply because we all use the same hardware anyway. Obviously Microsoft thinks they're going to be king of that hill, and I think that's where they're clueless. Apple and Microsoft are literally in operating systems to dumb down computer use for the least capable to do so. The complexity of what computers do, however, is steadily increasing, requiring something more like Linux, where the OS can be modded to support specific operations, appearance, etc.
I do have a tablet, with a couple of CAD apps, which I do use to make annotations, corrections and updates "on the field" (naval engineering).
Do I appreciate the sheer usefulness of the whole thing? Sure I do.
Do I like the CAD interface (precision, usability, responsiveness, etc.)? Nope.
Do I think the two things should look the same on the two very different environments (desktop with keyboard and mouse vs tablet with touchscreen)? Nope, again.
Is the tablet apt to be used for prolonged typing (as in writing lines of code, or just detailed reports), or digital drawing with layers, filters, effects, and a hundred other professional kinds of work? Nope, for the third time.
An handheld, portable device such as a touchscreen tablet is really usful for minor corrections, small and absolutely not complex updates, or even generic sketching a layout of a new work. But it's close to useless for detailed, in depth or long term working (don't get me started on batteries duration).
It's a cool gadget to keep up to date various small thingies, and that's it. End of the line. I need a different tool, with a different environment and user interface to get my job done properly. Having a full options range on the tablet would clutter it to oblivion, while streamlining the one on the desktop (ribbon interface instead of toolbars has already been a nasty step in that direction) would take away the true power of the software at hand.
A single, unified user interface is ANTTDNW (another nice trick that does not work), at least with the current technology.
Seriously... the Win8 photo gallery... how do I CLOSE the damn thing???
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have Win8 as well and the first thing I did was install new programs so I wouldn't have to use the wretched metro stuff. Classic Shell, WinAmp, heck I even went back and got the old Windows Photo Gallery program for opening images.Any specific reason you just simply don't go back to 7?
For my wife, it's money. Her computer came with Windows 8, not 7 sadly and it wasn't an option
Seriously... the Win8 photo gallery... how do I CLOSE the damn thing???
alt+f4 is the only way ive found (or alt tab out of it) its my biggest complaint with win 8 lol
I stick with win 7 as well... 8 = yuck.
So Julie Larson-Green of Microsoft wants to end flexibility in their OS because she is convinced ONE SYSTEM is the answer. I will admit any effort to improve mobile OS security I have to like, but that doesn't mean I want a mobile OS on my desktop... ~sigh~
Although didn't Microsoft a year or two ago have some talking spokesman out there saying they wanted to get rid of desktops and laptops completely in favor of tablets? If I remember that correctly (and it wasn't just conspiracy theory by a gaming magazine author) then it makes complete sense to stop supporting a separate OS for PCs.
I stick with win 7 as well... 8 = yuck.
So Julie Larson-Green of Microsoft wants to end flexibility in their OS because she is convinced ONE SYSTEM is the answer. I will admit any effort to improve mobile OS security I have to like, but that doesn't mean I want a mobile OS on my desktop... ~sigh~
And you won't have one. This isn't about making the user experience the same across all formats. If you'd read the article, you'd know that. This is about unifying the platform so that users aren't put in the position of owning software that runs on their tablet but not their desktop, or runs on their phone but not their tablet, etc.
Seriously... the Win8 photo gallery... how do I CLOSE the damn thing???
You're not supposed to close it. Just like on your phone, Windows 8 Metro apps are intelligently managed by the OS. You can switch into and out of them, and they will remain active until the computer needs those resources, at which point the OS will terminate the program to free those resources up.
This is a good thing. It means your access to that program is faster and avoids negatively impacting your computer's performance. If you want to switch to another program, just swipe out of the gallery.
Asking, "How do I CLOSE the damn thing?" is like asking how you save your MMORPG character to your hard drive.
And you won't have one. This isn't about making the user experience the same across all formats. If you'd read the article, you'd know that. This is about unifying the platform so that users aren't put in the position of owning software that runs on their tablet but not their desktop, or runs on their phone but not their tablet, etc.I stick with win 7 as well... 8 = yuck.
So Julie Larson-Green of Microsoft wants to end flexibility in their OS because she is convinced ONE SYSTEM is the answer. I will admit any effort to improve mobile OS security I have to like, but that doesn't mean I want a mobile OS on my desktop... ~sigh~
That doesn't make any sense. They're not going to make the user experience the same across all devices, but they're going to make sure that all software works on all devices?
I suppose if the underlying OS is the same, programs might compile and run on all devices, but they'll suck unless designed for each. The display is different. The user interface is different. The processing power is different. Programs need to be designed to work with the capabilities and limitations of the hardware they'll be used on.
The idea is that they're moving towards programs designed to accommodate those different formats as necessary. It's a design challenge, but not the nightmare it's often made out to be. The current app ecosystem is a slog for Windows - I don't blame them for wanting to move away from Windows Phone and Windows RT, neither of which has proven particularly successful.
This doesn't seem far fetched or even undesirable to me. In fact, they already have a proven success in unifying different platforms: Windows XP was a successful unification of the separate home and professional OS lines (Win9x/ME and WinNT/2K).
|
|
This doesn't seem far fetched or even undesirable to me. In fact, they already have a proven success in unifying different platforms: Windows XP was a successful unification of the separate home and professional OS lines (Win9x/ME and WinNT/2K).
There is a difference between merging two PC OS architectures and trying to make a single OS for all platforms. I find it undesirable.
Once can make applications that run on both platforms, there is no need to screw the PC users more with dumber interfaces focused on fingers.Most of us don't own a touchscreen monitor, and don't plan to. Because they are expensive and break easily.
This is a good thing. It means your access to that program is faster and avoids negatively impacting your computer's performance. If you want to switch to another program, just swipe out of the gallery.
I would agree with you, except that I prefer my OS not to run things i don't tell it to. I know it's a matter of convenience but that's just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously... the Win8 photo gallery... how do I CLOSE the damn thing???You're not supposed to close it. Just like on your phone, Windows 8 Metro apps are intelligently managed by the OS. You can switch into and out of them, and they will remain active until the computer needs those resources, at which point the OS will terminate the program to free those resources up.
This is a good thing. It means your access to that program is faster and avoids negatively impacting your computer's performance. If you want to switch to another program, just swipe out of the gallery.
Asking, "How do I CLOSE the damn thing?" is like asking how you save your MMORPG character to your hard drive.
No. It is most certainly NOT. It is like asking "how do I close the damn thing?". You really can't stop putting words in my mouth, as always implying I hold views I do not, and am stupid for holding them.
Microsoft made a version of Windows, 98, that set its sights on knowing what you wanted to do better than you did. They should have learnt that particular lesson then. A while after that came a windows 98 lite that dispensed with Active Desktop because people didn't like it. Not putting in a close button is arrogant and stupid. When I use my computer, it does get difficult to find the relevant window at times, and Microsoft wanting you to keep every single program you started up is not a good enough reason to have a few more. So, no, it is not a good thing. Your mileage varies. You are Scott Betts. Nothing more needs be said.
No. It is most certainly NOT.
Sure it is.
It is like asking "how do I close the damn thing?". You really can't stop putting words in my mouth, as always implying I hold views I do not, and am stupid for holding them.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. In fact, I quoted you. I was saying that the words you said are similar to these other words.
Microsoft made a version of Windows, 98, that set its sights on knowing what you wanted to do better than you did. They should have learnt that particular lesson then. A while after that came a windows 98 lite that dispensed with Active Desktop because people didn't like it. Not putting in a close button is arrogant and stupid.
It is neither of those things. It's a smart design decision that appears "arrogant and stupid" for literally no other reason than you not understanding how it works.
When I use my computer, it does get difficult to find the relevant window at times, and Microsoft wanting you to keep every single program you started up is not a good enough reason to have a few more.
Alt-tab provides a view of all running applications, and allows you to switch very quickly (you can even tap the program you want to switch to from the alt-tab interface, if your computer has a touch screen). It's the best way to switch between apps that use the Metro UI if you have more than a few running.
So, no, it is not a good thing. Your mileage varies.
Your mileage varies only based on how well you know how to use your computer.
You are Scott Betts. Nothing more needs be said.
Personal attacks. Great.
Apps you install from the Windows Store don’t slow down your PC, so you don’t need to close them. When you’re not using an app, Windows will leave it running in the background and then close it eventually if you don’ t use it.
.....What?
That is almost the most nonsensical statement I've ever heard about processing. Of course it affects your processing speed, it's using the CPU and Memory to run in the background.
Okay so maybe with one or two of them running its no big deal on a modern system and you won't notice the change, but open 10-20 or more and I bet you'll see a tick up in resource use.
Which does suggest there are reasons to close apps, even if they don't slow the machine down.
Desktop apps, not Metro apps. Desktop apps are not managed by the Metro interface, and they are not built to intelligently manage resources when they are not the active window. There are good reasons to shut them down.
Apps you install from the Windows Store don’t slow down your PC, so you don’t need to close them. When you’re not using an app, Windows will leave it running in the background and then close it eventually if you don’ t use it.
.....What?
That is almost the most nonsensical statement I've ever heard about processing. Of course it affects your processing speed, it's using the CPU and Memory to run in the background.
Okay so maybe with one or two of them running its no big deal on a modern system and you won't notice the change, but open 10-20 or more and I bet you'll see a tick up in resource use.
When the OS detects that memory or processing power is becoming limited, it intelligently terminates Metro apps to free up resources. Therefore, Metro apps running in the background should never slow your computer down, because they will self-terminate before they impact your computer's performance in any noticeable way.
And Metro apps never have data or state that might need to be saved? Or possibly shouldn't be saved?
Windows will decide this better than I can?
My understanding is that Metro apps preserve state when they self-terminate, if state is something that the app cares about. I haven't watched it yet, but I expect that this talk will go a long way towards explaining the framework. Do let me know if my understanding of that is incorrect.
I hope most things I need won't be Metro apps, when I am eventually forced to move to 8 (or more likely whatever comes next.
It's a fair bet that they aren't. Microsoft's desire to more towards a unified ecosystem all but requires that the abandon the Metro standard as it currently exists, or dramatically rework it.
When the OS detects that memory or processing power is becoming limited, it intelligently terminates Metro apps to free up resources. Therefore, Metro apps running in the background should never slow your computer down, because they will self-terminate before they impact your computer's performance in any noticeable way.
Okay, can't say I like that.
I understand where it's coming from and I can see utility in it especially with folks who open 50 things and forget to close them out.
Personally I have a problem with the whole "Oh I see you forgot something let me fix it for you." thing Microsoft is increasingly building into their products. I've had too many experiences where Windows/Office/Visual Studio whatever "fixed" what it interpreted as a problem when it was something I had intended to do.
Their position assumes that all end users are morons, or at least that they know the end user's task better than they do. While it is true that a basic principle of System Design is to K.I.S.S. and design to the least common denominator, they are approaching the stage of removing flexibility and calling it improvement.
When the OS detects that memory or processing power is becoming limited, it intelligently terminates Metro apps to free up resources. Therefore, Metro apps running in the background should never slow your computer down, because they will self-terminate before they impact your computer's performance in any noticeable way.
Okay, can't say I like that.
I understand where it's coming from and I can see utility in it especially with folks who open 50 things and forget to close them out.
Personally I have a problem with the whole "Oh I see you forgot something let me fix it for you." thing Microsoft is increasingly building into their products. I've had too many experiences where Windows/Office/Visual Studio whatever "fixed" what it interpreted as a problem when it was something I had intended to do.
Their position assumes that all end users are morons, or at least that they know the end user's task better than they do. While it is true that a basic principle of System Design is to K.I.S.S. and design to the least common denominator, they are approaching the stage of removing flexibility and calling it improvement.
Until you can identify actual and significant problems with the design as-is, I don't really see any reason to be ambiguously critical of it. Yes, it's trying to figure out in advance what decisions would be best for the user, and then carry them out. That's what smart design does. And now that you know that it is possible to manually terminate Metro apps (dragging to the bottom of the screen), even these ambiguous concerns are unwarranted.
And to answer the original question, which you continue to refuse to do, the advice in my earlier post should work with Metro apps (drag to bottom of screen and hold.) Alt-F4 should work as well.
I wasn't refusing to do anything. I pointed out that Metro apps are designed in such a way that they don't need to be closed manually. If the issue had been pressed I would have looked it up, but you provided the answer before my second post on the topic.
Until you can identify actual and significant problems with the design as-is, I don't really see any reason to be ambiguously critical of it. Yes, it's trying to figure out in advance what decisions would be best for the user, and then carry them out. That's what smart design does. And now that you know that it is possible to manually terminate Metro apps (dragging to the bottom of the screen), even these ambiguous concerns are unwarranted.
I'll freely admit that most of my concerns with the way 8 does things is probably due to lack of hands on time with the OS. I installed and uninstalled my Dev edition within a week of release.
My company decided to focus on supporting Windows 7 till end of life so I saw no need in continuing to evaluate it until I had no other choice. Especially since current sentiment is that Windows 8 will be quickly ushered out much like vista due to the slow acceptance
The only serious complaint I currently have with the current design is that I feel the split interface between Metro/Desktop causes cognitive dissonance with the user.
Where the old start menu wouldn't interrupt your focus overly much just bringing up the small list of choices over your current windows the new metro interfaces completely removes whatever you were looking at from the screen causing a real break in concentration/focus.
The only serious complaint I currently have with the current design is that I feel the split interface between Metro/Desktop causes cognitive dissonance with the user.
Definitely a strong criticism, though not of either interface individually. I think their awareness of that problem is what's leading them to decide they need to unify their platform.
But they cannot. If they make a unified OS, one or all of the platforms will actually suffer.
That's some kind of weird software design myth. It presumes that all the platforms are currently designed to perfection, and that design must inherently suffer for the sake of unification. The former is certainly not true, and the latter is likely not true.
I fail to see how a mobile OS will let me get the most from my desktop? And any OS built to run on a phone IS a mobile OS.
I fail to see how a mobile OS will let me get the most from my desktop? And any OS built to run on a phone IS a mobile OS.
Your assumptions are poor ones.
It is possible for an OS that is developed to provide an excellent mobile user experience to also provide an excellent desktop user experience. There is no law saying that can't happen. It's just a matter of effective design.