|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10088171 wrote: 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. |
Maybe so. If that's the case then I'm just going to fade back and stay where I am for the duration. I've been at this for 37 years and am content supporting a large enterprise application and developing small customized systems that revolve around the desktop. I'm finding plenty to do. If it dries up then I guess I'll hang my hat and go drive a bus or something. I don't need to keep up with all this stuff anymore. Plenty to do back here in the dungeon! It's not worth stressing over. 
|
|
|
|
|
No need for bus driving; your skills will be in demand on Linux platform; after all old good Windows and Linux have much in common.
Please note that closed application deployment is for Metro UI only; desktop app deployment is still the same regardless of Win version.
modified 25-Oct-13 22:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10088171 wrote: No need for bus driving; your skills will be in demand on Linux platform; after all old good Windows and Linux have much in common.
Please note that closed application deployment is for Metro UI only; desktop app deployment is still the same regardless of Win version. |
Linux? Naah. I never run into a need for that. I've got everything boilerplated under VS2008 and SQL Server for Windows platforms. The day I can't find someone needs that is the day I start driving a bus or become a beach bum!
|
|
|
|
|
I have some good news to update. First I updated (not upgraded) to windows 8.1 and at first glance I think the UI experience was worse than 8.0. But I had planned on installing "Start is back" so was not worried. See www.startisback.com . I just did this and highly recommend it. It does exactly what is claims to do and now Windows 8.1 works sanely like windows 7 AND allows for a better access to the new metro apps.
|
|
|
|
|
I really find it hard to imagine something like Adobe Photoshop or CorelDraw becoming a Metro app. While Metro has some benefits, IMO it loses the power of the desktop. The Desktop needs to be supported for a good number of years or Windows will fail. Why ?
Everyone talks about how mobile is changing everything and that desktop PC's will disappear and everyone will have tablets in the future. I doubt it. What we are seeing is actually different. When I first started writing custom software for businesses in the late 80's (anyone remember CPM ?) and early 90's computers were very expensive. They were considered a business tool, not a consumer product. A cheap PC cost at least $2000 to $3000 ! In time, the cost of computer hardware dropped significantly and especially with globalization (aka. made in china) prices dropped so low that computer now became affordable by the masses. With this began the consumerization of PC's. Everyone could afford a computer, but there was something wrong with this. The average person who bought a PC, understood it very little. I would find myself helping consumers with their computers and they couldn't do simple things (like copy files). In essence, they had too much power in their hands. PC's now were being used as over glorified game machines, web browsers and email tools. Most consumers did not need all the power of the PC nor did they need overly complex software. So many times consumers when buying a PC would be oversold "power machines" by over zealous sales people (you need more ram, need bigger harddrive, need super duper CPU). Then something strange happened. Apple got the idea that consumers needed dedicated devices geared towards ease of use and designed for consumer needs. First it was Ipods/MP3 players and then tablets. Now everyone wants a tablet, something simple, just touch the screen and no need for a mouse or a keyboard. This new generation of computerized devices actually fit the needs of many consumers (light weight, not complex, just buy apps in an app store). So does this mean the end of the PC as we know it ? Does this mean the Desktop is dead ?
Absolutely not. Why ?
Because of the consumerization of the PC, the market is now dividing itself back towards its origins. PC's were originally intended as business machines, not consumer products. Now that there are consumer products to replace PC's, PC's are falling back to their origin of being a business machine designed to solve business needs. Of course a certain percentage of the PC market will fall to the tablet, but in time I venture to guess that it should level off and PC's will once again fall into the domain of the business world.
Now Metro for the enterprise and small businesses is a different story !!! I find it hard to believe that the sandboxed Metro environment (and even touch for that matter) can fulfill all the needs of business users. No touch screen keyboard could ever replace a quality mechanical keyboard for power users. No touch screen interface could replace the mouse for some power users (ie. CAD, animation, video editing, graphics). The mouse is a unique device which has proven itself over decades and will not be easily replaced. Full screen (unwindowed) apps just can't replace windowed apps, used on the desktop. Power users may have two, three or four apps running at the same time. They may have two or even three monitors connected to their PC. Power users need access to everything the PC offers and can ill afford to be stuck in a sandbox.
Lastly, what about backward compatibility. Backward compatiblity has been Windows biggest strength, despite Apples idea that the old should be disgarded. You see, Windows/PC's are used in business and businesses can ill afford a lack of backward compatibility. Look at how many XP machines are still being used by businesses. Does anyone really thing that all businesses will simply drop not only all XP machines, but all Vista and Windows 7 machines for the sake of Windows 8 and touch and be forced to rewrite every single app they use to a Metro design ? That makes no sense.
The real trick here is for developers to learn how to tap into the new features of Windows 8 (ie better touch and other devices) to design software which is smart enough to run on Windows 8 and get the most out of it, but still be able to run on Windows XP, Vista and 7. By doing this, the desktop should continue for many years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to follow up on my post. This is why for the last ten years I have been learning how to tap into the WIN32 API in a way where I can leverage both the old and the new. Rather than always designing apps for the latest version of Windows (and then it can't run on older versions), instead I find ways to make software run on both. One of the beauties of the WIN32 API is a simple technique of loading DLL's dynamically (LoadLibrary), then poll the DLL to see whether an API exists and if it does use a new feature and if it does not, then fall back and use something all versions of Windows contain instead.
There are also many power features in Windows, which have existed since Windows 95, but many programmers may take advantage of them. For example, the Windows DIB API's are very powerful and allow one to build heavy duty graphic features, which don't require any special hardware and which can run on all versions of Windows.
Simply put, programmers need to push the limits of the desktop further than they have in the past. Software needs to be dynamic, changing based on the needs. Run an app on XP and an app works like normal, expecting a mouse and keyboard. Run it on Windows 8, then it should check for touch, dynamically change to accomodate tablets and mobile devices. Autoscaling whould be built into the apps so it knows how to redesign itself intelligently based on the DPI and the device type. In essence programmers need to design smarter software, which can tap into the power of the desktop and shine even on Windows 8.
This is one of the reasons the Intel/Lenovo app contest is so exciting ! They want to see what we can do with the desktop. They want to see if programmers can push the limits of the desktop further, taking advantages of newer PC's and devices.
|
|
|
|
|
This is it exactly.
Most people who have a desktop do because that was their only option.
They sit in the corner of a room with their own desk, they need power, often they are noisy and they're not portable. You have to wait a minute or two for it to power up and login to. To a large extent, a desktop for mundane family tasks are odious and an inconvenience.
I'm a developer so we have a powerful machine at home that the family has come to use over time. My wife now has a tablet which she uses in preference to the desktop. My son has a smartphone which does most of what he wants. That is the pattern that we are seeing all over the place.
Eventually, I will be the only user of the desktop as it was many years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I've read through all of the replies and I think there is one thing that Microsoft is missing. Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks). Manufacturing, design, development, test and measurement all make heavy use of desktop computers either for the power they provide or the ability to connect to instruments/devices. Not to mention servers.
The desktop is a lot more prevalent than most people give credit to. Tablets have their place in these environments (I see a tech walking around a factory with a tablet so he can monitor the processes or, maybe, turn a piece of equipment on or off - by talking to another machine), but they are not the machine that is doing the real work. Offices need a lot of typing for one thing.
I constantly have multiple applications open that share data between them. Tablets are definitely not good for those types of applications.
I think my point here is that the desktop world is larger than Microsoft appears to be thinking it is. There is room for an OS that adapts to multiple environments. What's that idea? Make the machine do the work of adapting - not the people? What a strange concept - that computers could make our life easier.
Rob Cole
(Yes, I'm a developer from a time when I had to clarify that I did not do photographs)
|
|
|
|
|
rcole117 wrote: Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks).
When commentators speak of "the death of the PC" I don't think they actually mean that desktop-style interaction will go. I think they mean the big clunky beige box.
My take on Surface is that Microsoft wants you to own a Surface Pro as your desktop. You carry it around, you use it at home, on the train, everywhere, and when you come into the office you pop it in its dock and it becomes your desktop. Think of it as the evolution of the laptop.
It's a brilliant idea and it will happen.
They just tried to fly before they could walk.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm not as eloquent as I should be to express the ideas bubbling through my mind. There are many excellent points in previous posts (including yours) that state how the applications and the OS should adapt to the environment (read: machine they are running on) and I heartily agree.
Despite the fact that I consider myself a power user who is split between developing applications and building 3D graphics and animations (for which I do prefer the big clunky beige box with its amazing power, multiple monitors and multiple graphics cards), I can see that easier to use systems would benefit a majority of users. Until such time as the tablets can perform to the same level as the computers I currently use (and yes, I believe this increase in capability will happen) and business/industry adopts them in a BIG way, the support for all of the possible uses should continue. I know it's easier to support if you can get everyone into the same box, but there are a lot of us "individuals" out here and as many uses for the computers as there are users (almost).
I know that industrial computers (rack mounted, big, clunky boxes) are already a niche market and they will not be going away soon. Not until you can connect scads of instruments to a computer without having to add a number of internal cards (USB, Wifi, other RF are still not fast enough for a lot of applications).
Alright, kind of random thoughts there, but it's the way I feel. I'm not a stick-in-the-mud but I prefer my tools to be able to do what I want to do and not change what I do because the tools do things differently.
Rob Cole
Computerized Industrial Test and Measurement Proponent
|
|
|
|
|
The excuse of Surface failure in corporate corridors is that Microsoft is ahead of its time; yes you read it correctly; Microsoft is ahead of the pack
|
|
|
|
|
As they were with the tablet PC and Windows CE.
They just don't have the fortitude to hold off releasing until it's actually working well. Their move to having their own hardware is 10 years too late, but a welcome development, and may help them bridge the gap between what they want their software to do and what the hardware is able.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I am big fan of MS (at least until now pending clarification from MS); best most productive IDE, innovative software and hardware technologies if not best including Surface, phone; even if it is bad timing and targeting wrong user base.
With Win 8 there are some fundamental issues;
One of them is big thing lurking here: Uncertainty. What is the future of Windows platform, .Net and associated technologies 5-10 years out. I understand difficulty answering this question because we are at technological crossroads. However, clarity is the most important thing here because software development cycle and its lifetime is much longer than 6 months.
Same questions are coming from hardware manufacturers; MS served as an umbrella for 1000's different configurations; MS are you with us or against us?
And similarly with developers; are you abandoning us in favor of in house development and closed platform? When we will know what is the plan and your vision?
MS does not have much time to clarify it or trying to figure it out. No one is going to wait too long because it is too costly.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You carry it around, you use it at home, on the train, everywhere, and when you come into the office you pop it in its dock and it becomes your desktop. Think of it as the evolution of the laptop.
It's a brilliant idea and it will happen.
I for one will not be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Developers made Windows what it is today (or was).
Piss em off - and they will be off to greener pastures.
Who the ____ would want to write C++ low level on a touch screen?!?
I think some of these younger MS coders and designers having been playing in la la land too long. Someone should show them what's under the hood.
That's right - go ahead and totally destroy what you've spent ages developing... and start from scratch.... we'll have to find an OS that will work for people that actually create applications et al for the OS to become popular. Someone should just pull all source from MS and leave them to play with IE and slabs of glass.
Some days I swear it's April Fools.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
