|
Here in my Ubuntu household sir, we don't tolerate that sort of crap.
I can change from the Ubiquity(Unity) front end to a variety of different window systems,(at least for the time-being), but I don't.
Their Unity interface is obviously suitable for touch, yet I find it to be a convenient and easily usable desktop system.
Of course, the large amount of free, and very effective, software saved me having to try/buy and spew credit card details everywhere for windows programmes that may or may not do the job.
Negatives? Well for one thing, there is no 64-bit version of skype which is easily installable, certainly nothing in the standard store.
Another big worry is the new 'Mir' window system, currently it is the default but at the next release it will become the sole platform, which is not sensible considering both my Linux home-boxes have reverted to X underneath. If they haven't got the driver set sorted by April, it could be a real problem.
Two weeks may be a long time in politics, but 6 months is not necessarily a long time in open source software.
And of course, one must be prepared to be a little adventurous in tweaking your system by tracking down the (freely available) expertise online and solving any minor issues, although this latest cycle (13.10) has proved to be pretty much trouble-free.
I keep several Windows installations - a virtual Vista for i-Tunes(which is now unused as the DRM makes buying Apple songs futile) and a trusty XP native box which I fire up every few months. Last time I used that was to integrate my HP printer onto my home WiFi, but I've since discovered that it isn't needed anymore as HP Linux support is excellent.
If you ARE any kind of developer, or on a budget, Linux is well worth considering.(Hobby-to-job prospects etc)
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft releases a new version of it's OS and it puts users in a UI-shellshock, it breaks many of their current applications, it near-forces users to need a touch display (are there many touch displays for desktops out there?) and they expect everyone to be happy?
Apple releases a new OS and gives it a catchy name, adds tabbed-browsing to their version of Windows Explorer, integrates a map feature into the OS and makes only a few other minor changes, while strengthening the core of the kernel.
I use to be a hardcore Windows Developer and lover. I even blogged about it as a young developer and waxed philosophically of how the behemoth of Microsoft loved it's developers and equipped them to make wonderful software for the masses.
However, that era has past. I need consistency and nominal updates to the operating system that fix what's broken and, as a result, continues to empower me to make exceptional software for the masses. Sure, you can make the GUI prettier but don't break your OS, at it's core, to do it!
Goodbye Microsoft. Our relationship was a good one while it lasted. However, your obsession of breaking new ground at the expense of breaking important OS fundamentals has forced me to search for an alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't noticed Windows 8 break a single one of my existing applications. Indeed most of them run better due to improved performance.
I rarely use the new UI, but it rarely causes me problems either.
I do wish they would allow me to access some of the new API from desktop app's too, but that hardly breaks anything!
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The article you cited states:
"Within a few years, mainstream versions of Windows will be known for their flat, Metro-style and touch-first UIs, and the legacy Windows desktop will be available only via increasingly archaic and uncommon desktop PCs."
I think the message isn't that the desktop is going away, but rather that the conventional PC will no longer be mainstream.
Tablets are good for consuming content. Other than recording video and audio, tablets are not particularly good at producing content. Apple's iPad, and subsequent tablets by other manufacturers, have significantly cut into laptop and desktop sales.
The products we programmers require might become a niche market, but I think that market will be here to stay for quite a while, including the desktop in all operating systems; at least until you can speak to your computer, tell it to solve a problem, and it writes the code!
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting feature of android is that if you plug a mouse into an android tab (3.0+ IIRC), a cursor is drawn on the screen for it.
I haven't tried that on a Win 'ate tab. Does it work there, too?
I suppose it could be made to work on itoys (if you were willing to pay circa $199 for a single-button imouse, and didn't need the socket for anything else, like charging).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I played around with a new Surface Pro 2 last night, with a TypeCover attached. When using the keyboard's trackpad, the mouse cursor did, in fact, appear and, IIRC, it disappeared when fingertips left the trackpad. It's easy to assume that, were a mouse connected to the Surface, the cursor would be persistent and just as easy to assume it would be as ephemeral as the one associated with the trackpad, again assuming that it disappeared when I quit using the trackpad.
On the Surface store site, MS does have a Bluetooth mouse offered as one of the accessories, FWIW.
|
|
|
|
|
On Windows RT you can plug in a mouse and a keyboard. I have used a mouse with my Surface RT, I have the TypeCover so I haven't bothered plugging in a keyboard. For the the Surface RT is a consumption device despite the fact that I can use office on it.
Obviously if you get a tablet that runs full Windows (Surface Pro or others) you are only limited by the ports available on the device. You can plug in a mouse, a keyboard, USB headset, multiple monitors etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I am waiting to see this evolution and how world is going to react. There is no alternative either so either one (Microsoft or people) have to lean towards the other. Let us wait and see who is going to win, windows 8 goes back to windows 7 way or people adapt the windows 8 way. Only time can tell the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
I figure people will adapt.
Firstly most of the "users" consume media. And that is what the Metro UI is good at.
For the more experienced users that create media, the desktop still is and will continue to be available, but only for said "creators". I've been using Windows 8 since it came out, and can't remember the last time I used the metro UI for anything, except for pressing the windows key, typing the app i want to open and press enter. Which is the same exact method I use in Win7 so no changes there.
Granted, having to mose the mouse to the corner of the screen is sometimes tedious, specially with a big screen, but it's something i can live with, as I really don't do it that often.
I remember the days of the ribbon in the office suite. The IT masses went postal over it. But for the regular consumer, it made sense and made it easier for them to use the basic functions, so they stuck with it. And the "creators" and "supporters" ended up having to adapt.
|
|
|
|
|
> Firstly most of the "users" consume media. And that is what the Metro UI is good at.
The thing is, most people that consume media are moving away from the desktop to tablets and phones.
The desktop as it stands will become a more niche player for developers largely.
I know a lot of people, developers mostly, that have multiple platforms for different use cases. They have a desktop for work, a smartphone for mobile, a tablet for portable work (like taking notes) and media consumption.
A lot of people that have historically had a desktop at home use it for email, media etc. and because it was their only option. Most people who wish to do this kind of thing are realising that space, power and cost of a desktop for this use case is unreasonable.
Metro for desktop use is, in the main, a waste of time. Those that like it will more and more *not* be using desktops.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but remember that Windows 8 is their first step in a unified OS.
Meaning, the same OS in a tablet, desktop or mobile, will need to have the Metro UI for consumers, but will still have desktop for developers.
Because even in tablets, like the surface, the consumers will mainly see Metro UI. But since the OS will be the same everywhere, there still needs be the desktop, so that the creators can just plug in a keyboard and do their thing.
|
|
|
|
|
It's really "Say goodbye to the Windows Desktop"
While the data consumers will be happy, the data generators will have to return to the days of SUN or Silicon Graphics workstations.
There will always be workstations of one sort or another because the data generators will demand it. Microsoft made the audacious move to make workstations commodities. They seem to be back-tracking on that decision. I expect Linux to come to the fore to run workstations of the future, much like the various flavors of UNIX ran them in the past.
What goes around, comes around.
|
|
|
|
|
I among many others agree that Windows 8 for a desktop machine in the hands of a developer is a major step backward. I find zero redeeming value in the Windows 8 UI, none whatsoever. I have 3 big monitors, many simultaneous windows and applications open. In fact if I had the resources I could easily fine use for more monitors. Between running multiple editors, device emulators, monitoring tools, etc, it is a challenge to fit even on three screens. I think this Metro UI is idiotic and I hope that someday the industry will awake from this delusion and return to a sensible approach where not one size fits all.
I hate Windows 8.
|
|
|
|
|
As a media creator, you wouldn't use the Metro UI.
Readmy post above. Using windows 8 since it came out, and I rarely touch metro, as I'm always in desktop mode.
Besides being faster (sometimes by quite a bit) i find no difference using it in desktop mode.
The Metro UI is only used to consume media, and never to develop content. Hence why Windows 8 comes with a desktop mode, for us to develop that content.
Thinking you are stuck with only metro is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't anyone is fooled to think Metro is the only interactive mode. But I find the windows 8 desktop mode to be a less productive environment than the windows 7 environment. And I am not simply talking about the Start button/menu. I do use Windows 8 and I can say I don't like it. The metro view keeps wanting to rear its ugly head. I have no issues with this on a tablet or phone platform, only on a big old PC with multiple monitors, keyboard, mouse, etc.
In fact if anyone would have asked for my opinion I would have suggested running the Metro Ui 'within' a classic window on the desktop. But they are trying to force metro upon us. It like they feel it is medicine and should be taken and tolerated.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Korsberg wrote: I don't anyone is fooled to think Metro is the only interactive mode.
You would be surprised.
I've had no problems with Windows 8 desktop mode. The way the metro app tries to be the default to open music and picture and video files is annoying, but only for 5 seconds until I change it.
Using several monitors also, and I don't see metro anywhere. The only time I see any metro is while pressing the windows key to search for apps, but I only use the keyboard there anyway so it doesn't really matter, and when powering down the pc, and that took some searching.
I honestly can't see any usage I've been doin' that suggests this:
Ed Korsberg wrote: The metro view keeps wanting to rear its ugly head.
Because i never really see it.
|
|
|
|
|
> Because i never really see it.
And this is the key point.
What you're basically saying is that you find Metro fine because you can switch it off.
So, other than some performance enhancements in Windows 8, which are always welcome, what is the point in Metro really on a desktop?
The reality is that people don't want to consume media sat in front of a desktop. They would much rather either sit in the living room with a TV connected to a media server or use a tablet where it is comfortable and convenient.
People sit in front of desktops to do work. There is no logical reason why one UI should be used for both.
It makes sense for the OSes to interact seamlessly with each other, but trying to stitch Metro and desktop UIs together in the same box is pure madness.
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that it needs to be there, for the consumers.
As I said before, this is their first step in a unified OS. Meaning it will be the same OS in desktops/tablets/mobiles.
This will allow to adapt your device to you, no matter what device it is.
For example, 2 people use the surface tablet.
User nº 1 is a media consumer. He/she will only see the metro UI.
On the other hand, user nº2, is a media developer. He can just grab the same exact device, plugin the keyboard, and switch to desktop mode to do whatever they want.
On the same exact device and OS.
That is exactly the point on having both modes on the same OS. One OS, one device, and you can use it however you want it, either to consume or to create.
Yes, desktops are moving more and more to a niche market of content creation. But even on the surface tablet, having the desktop mode for quick work, is a god send.
|
|
|
|
|
You may or may not be true, but the OP is talking about desktops.
Most people take this to mean the big box that doesn't have batteries.
It is a powerful machine use primarily to develop. The principal use case for this is development and not media consumption.
I do sometimes use Netflix on my desktop, but more and more, I use the Smart TV down stairs, it's much nicer and more convenient.
Touch screen tablets that can be used as desktops sometimes by adding hardware are blurring the boundaries between the conventional form factors and I think this is a good thing. Having to "make do" with something because your ideal platform doesn't exist is something that we are seeing less and less of.
But I think that the economics of computing is actually turning people is a different direction from where Surface is heading. Computers are becoming more and more cheap commodity items. So people will increasingly have different devices for different use cases. There will be no need to have a device that fits all of your use cases. People already have phones, tablets, laptops, smart TVs and (maybe) desktops because we can. We do at home and we are far from rare.
I just don't think there is a future for a do-it-all device. Certainly, I think the market bears this out.
|
|
|
|
|
One UI will keep people more focused on content consuming with less chance of escaping media and advertisers message. Until now you had a choice; they do not get your full attention because you have a peek at news on separate windows just for a moment; too short to embed the message or ad in your brain and you already trained yourself how to navigate web to avoid content of no interest to you. And that's where Metro comes in. It is not meant for user enjoyment or productivity but rather as a convenience for media and advertisers. It is backed by research on web usage patterns and user reaction based on individual psychological profile; the preferred way is to train brain-hand reflex on touch screen to control that interaction better.
|
|
|
|
|
Because desktop pc will also become a niche device in the future just like what they're planning with windows desktop.
A lot of people now use touch and light and mobile devices, Microsoft's answer to this is the Metro UI. For the developers, they only need to focus on the desktop and it's basically the same thing with some improvements because after all this will be the source to create the Metro UI apps. Besides you will only see the Metro UI when opening something. We are developers so it should be given that we are already familiar with the keyboard shortcuts to access things we want to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
|
Metro UI is closed platform; you cannot install hello world program on your grandma computer any more without going through store, special sideload license or enterprise windows.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you miss the point of windows 8; If you dont like parts of it dont use them. I find the desktop in windows 8 to be superior to win 7;
The Sales Person at Best Buy complained to me that there is a Desktop on this tablet with tiny buttons (trying to talk me out of buying a win8 tablet). Power users complaint that there are full screen apps on the computer that they dont like. Again, if you dont like parts of it dont use them.
To start and app is the same as in win7 just looks different.
Start->Type->(Arrow)->Enter
For a non full metro ui experience in Win8.1 try
Start+S->Type->(arrow)->enter
As software developers we stress the importance of releasing a minimum viable product then rapidly releasing updates based on user wants and feedback. Is Microsoft not doing this? Keep giving them feedback and letting your wants known. Saying this has no value is a waste. You should be saying this could be better if...
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Korsberg wrote: I among many others agree that Windows 8 for a desktop machine in the hands of a developer is a major step backward. I find zero redeeming value in the Windows 8 UI, none whatsoever. I have 3 big monitors, many simultaneous windows and applications open. In fact if I had the resources I could easily fine use for more monitors. Between running multiple editors, device emulators, monitoring tools, etc, it is a challenge to fit even on three screens. I think this Metro UI is idiotic and I hope that someday the industry will awake from this delusion and return to a sensible approach where not one size fits all.
It's hard to say whether the thing is going to make it or not but to folks like us it's clearly not going anywhere. I can see it fulfilling a purpose in the tablet space (similar to iOS), but you're not going to see the desktop environment go away. It may not be as visible out there, and that's OK. Microsoft and anyone else that understands anything realizes that the desktop environment is where REAL work gets done. Yeah, sure, I'm going to design a SQL database or write a software application on a touch Metro style screen. No, that may be the TARGET of a development effort but it's not going to replace the development environment which is a desktop. VS2013 is a DESKTOP app. I'd really like to see MS put it's developer tools into Metro. Yeah, right!
Microsoft may be trying to fade the desktop into the background all right, but they're not going to destroy the bread-and-butter here. I believe there will always be some kind of desktop system. It may take a bit to get to it but it will be there and it will continue to be supported. The presence of all this mobile technology does not mean that the MASSIVE ecosystem built around the desktop is going to just roll-over and die. That is unless MS plans to do ALL the development itself or is willing to port ALL of it's development tools into "Metro" and force the developer community there. I think that idea is a bit of a stretch!
As for any individual developer, just pick which platform you want to develop to, get the tools and get to work. You can't do everything - don't try to. If you like "Metro" then get VS2013 and get busy. If you don't (like I don't) then do something else. There's a lot of angst over this one which I, personally, think is unecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
First check limitations for Metro apps and deployment methods. Metro is closed platform and you cannot do whatever you want. Content is censored by MS among other things like local storage, interaction with other programs etc. This is the future of programming.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
