Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I dislike GNOME 3 and Unity, but I also dislike Windows 8. My reasons have nothing to do with change or not. They have to do with my productivity. I made a big change when I switched from Windows to FreeBSD with xmonad -- but I didn't mind that change because it was exactly what I needed. Change isn't bad per se, but change for the sake of glamour at the expense of productivity is bad in my book.
The funny thing about all this is that Jack Wallen's behavior is very much what I'd expect from someone who hates change just because it's change -- the very people he appears to be denigrating. Early on, he hated the change, but once it became familiar he was okay with it, coming up with excuses to justify his own change (of opinion) based on some superficial alterations in minor details of how the respective UIs worked. I don't recall his complaints about Unity being particularly well-formed arguments, which is markedly different from the complaints I saw from people who seemed to have good reasons to dislike Unity and GNOME3 -- people who referred to bugginess, incompatibility with the usage models of particular applications (modular window arrangements like GIMP come to mind), and click-depth for access to applications, none of which stand out in my memory as being among Jack's favorite complaints.
I think, in fact, that some of the people proclaiming "the death of the Linux desktop" were probably referring to the fact that Ubuntu was abandoning a desktop computer model as inspiration for its interface in favor of a more tablet-oriented computer model, whether they were wrong about that or not. This might have been hasty, but it does not strike me as the kind of "hating change just because it's different" behavior that Jack seems to want to ascribe to anyone who disliked Unity and GNOME3, regardless of whether their specific complaints were the same as Jack's or not. It's strange to see him now pretending his derisive comments about people who disliked the arrival of GNOME3 and Unity do not apply to himself from a few months back as well as to anyone else.
One of the most annoying things I've seen people claim in online discussion is that people who have recently replaced an entire OS and application environment to escape more of the same old garbage from another OS vendor or project are "afraid of change". If they were afraid of change, they'd have stuck with the old OS. There is a big difference between being afraid of change and disliking counterproductive change, as you pointed out with excellent insight and clarity, Sterling.
My book, by the way, appears to have much the same text in it as yours.
I think, in fact, that some of the people proclaiming "the death of the Linux desktop" were probably referring to the fact that Ubuntu was abandoning a desktop computer model as inspiration for its interface in favor of a more tablet-oriented computer model, whether they were wrong about that or not. This might have been hasty, but it does not strike me as the kind of "hating change just because it's different" behavior that Jack seems to want to ascribe to anyone who disliked Unity and GNOME3, regardless of whether their specific complaints were the same as Jack's or not. It's strange to see him now pretending his derisive comments about people who disliked the arrival of GNOME3 and Unity do not apply to himself from a few months back as well as to anyone else.
One of the most annoying things I've seen people claim in online discussion is that people who have recently replaced an entire OS and application environment to escape more of the same old garbage from another OS vendor or project are "afraid of change". If they were afraid of change, they'd have stuck with the old OS. There is a big difference between being afraid of change and disliking counterproductive change, as you pointed out with excellent insight and clarity, Sterling.
My book, by the way, appears to have much the same text in it as yours.
Counterproductive change as you refer to boils down to changing the way you work and causing you to have to re-acclimate to a different way of doing things. Thus could be referred to as not liking or hating the change. Whatever your reasons, hating change essentially boils down to people that get upset when they have to learn how to do something different. Not the change itself necessarily, but what that change does to you personally. That's what you really hate. But it was change that started all this re-learning that you will have to do.
As techies, we should embrace change and welcome the challenge before deciding that it's counterproductive. Only until you actually give it some time will you know if it is actually counterproductive. Counter productivity shouldn't be decided during the re-learning phase. Yes there were some valid points of changes to Unity that made us do things differently but did it really cripple us to where we couldn't function. I don't believe so. At least it didn't me.
As techies, we should embrace change and welcome the challenge before deciding that it's counterproductive. Only until you actually give it some time will you know if it is actually counterproductive. Counter productivity shouldn't be decided during the re-learning phase. Yes there were some valid points of changes to Unity that made us do things differently but did it really cripple us to where we couldn't function. I don't believe so. At least it didn't me.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientest to realize that 99.9999999% of the automobiles built today, and since the 50's or even earlier .. should *ALWAYS* have the turn signal lever on the RIGHT side of the steering wheel.
its a defacto standard! Just like in the 70's when .. I can't remember the brand ... an auto maker came out with a car that's horn was accessed by pushing *in* on the turn signal lever.. it was extremely wrong for them, because people getting into a rental car or not familiar with the layout as all other cars were made .. would be more likely to get into an accident because the horn wasn't where they expected it.
SO TOO, does microsoft and gnome need to go that extra step... during install or during the last phases of set-up ...OR... in setting up the individual user to log on... have preferences for that user that they can set, and have an understanding for.
namely.. "Are you using this product on a Desktop computer, with standard mouse and keyboard ... and if so.. would you like to have the base layout for accessing the menus, the common screen layout, and other UI options as a 'desktop type' ... OR ... are you using this product on a tablet with the need and desire to use it with a touch interface" ... there could also be a third option, to allow the user a HYBRID UI ... but it seems like every company out there in this vein is *not* thinking about the EVERY user ... only thinking about where they believe the market is or is going to go, as such they seem to think everyone will be on a touch pad/tablet device ... etc.. and they are dead f**king wrong!
Even in cases where a user has a touch enabled monitor .. but they are in a business environment where they perform customer service ... who in their right mind wants to raise their hand to the screen for every mouse type action that you'd normally use without the touch interface?
NO ONE ... and the preclusion of not giving the user a SIMPLIFIED means to switch interface types .. and to have those interface types optimized and similarized to be more or less equal, but designed for the respective input type .. is where they have lost everyone and will ultimately cause the uproar such that they (Microsoft and Gnome/Unity/etc) DESERVE to be whipped repeatedly for their continued stupidity in such regards.
its a defacto standard! Just like in the 70's when .. I can't remember the brand ... an auto maker came out with a car that's horn was accessed by pushing *in* on the turn signal lever.. it was extremely wrong for them, because people getting into a rental car or not familiar with the layout as all other cars were made .. would be more likely to get into an accident because the horn wasn't where they expected it.
SO TOO, does microsoft and gnome need to go that extra step... during install or during the last phases of set-up ...OR... in setting up the individual user to log on... have preferences for that user that they can set, and have an understanding for.
namely.. "Are you using this product on a Desktop computer, with standard mouse and keyboard ... and if so.. would you like to have the base layout for accessing the menus, the common screen layout, and other UI options as a 'desktop type' ... OR ... are you using this product on a tablet with the need and desire to use it with a touch interface" ... there could also be a third option, to allow the user a HYBRID UI ... but it seems like every company out there in this vein is *not* thinking about the EVERY user ... only thinking about where they believe the market is or is going to go, as such they seem to think everyone will be on a touch pad/tablet device ... etc.. and they are dead f**king wrong!
Even in cases where a user has a touch enabled monitor .. but they are in a business environment where they perform customer service ... who in their right mind wants to raise their hand to the screen for every mouse type action that you'd normally use without the touch interface?
NO ONE ... and the preclusion of not giving the user a SIMPLIFIED means to switch interface types .. and to have those interface types optimized and similarized to be more or less equal, but designed for the respective input type .. is where they have lost everyone and will ultimately cause the uproar such that they (Microsoft and Gnome/Unity/etc) DESERVE to be whipped repeatedly for their continued stupidity in such regards.
QUOTE: Counterproductive change as you refer to boils down to changing the way you work and causing you to have to re-acclimate to a different way of doing things.
That depends, really. In the long run, advantages for productivity may outweigh disadvantages, as in the case of when I learned to use vi. It took a little while to get to the point where my productivity when using vi was as good as when using other text editors; then it took a while longer for my productivity to significantly exceed my productivity with other editors; and finally, it took a while for my (still accelerating) increased productivity with vi to make up for the period of reduced productivity when I first started using it. By now, however, the productivity gains of using vi over the course of the entire time I have been using it so far outweigh the initial productivity losses as to make those initial issues almost immeasurable.
I welcome (momentary) productivity loss like the initial learning curve of vi, when I have the time to invest in learning a new way to do things, if it leads to far greater rewards in the future. I reject productivity losses that are perpetual and come with no particular reward. If you were paying me a worthwhile salary and my evaluation of the job itself was at least "okay", I would be willing to use tools that for me are productivity-inhibiting in the long run -- but that's because of the money, and not because I think Eclipse ever provides me any particular benefit beyond keeping my job.
QUOTE: As techies, we should embrace change and welcome the challenge before deciding that it's counterproductive. Only until you actually give it some time will you know if it is actually counterproductive.
I mentioned Eclipse in the context of employment above because I was in exactly that situation -- on top of which the company mandate required Eclipse running on Ubuntu. This was where I encountered Unity. It took me an hour to be sure it would be a significant productivity hit for the near future. It took me less than a week more to be sure it would be a productivity hit, contrasted with my preferred tools, forever.
QUOTE: Yes there were some valid points of changes to Unity that made us do things differently but did it really cripple us to where we couldn't function. I don't believe so.
There's a big difference between being a productivity suppressor and being a crippling obstacle. For many use cases, Ubuntu Unity is a productivity suppressor but not a crippling obstacle. For those use cases, Unity should be avoided, despite the fact you can still "function".
That depends, really. In the long run, advantages for productivity may outweigh disadvantages, as in the case of when I learned to use vi. It took a little while to get to the point where my productivity when using vi was as good as when using other text editors; then it took a while longer for my productivity to significantly exceed my productivity with other editors; and finally, it took a while for my (still accelerating) increased productivity with vi to make up for the period of reduced productivity when I first started using it. By now, however, the productivity gains of using vi over the course of the entire time I have been using it so far outweigh the initial productivity losses as to make those initial issues almost immeasurable.
I welcome (momentary) productivity loss like the initial learning curve of vi, when I have the time to invest in learning a new way to do things, if it leads to far greater rewards in the future. I reject productivity losses that are perpetual and come with no particular reward. If you were paying me a worthwhile salary and my evaluation of the job itself was at least "okay", I would be willing to use tools that for me are productivity-inhibiting in the long run -- but that's because of the money, and not because I think Eclipse ever provides me any particular benefit beyond keeping my job.
QUOTE: As techies, we should embrace change and welcome the challenge before deciding that it's counterproductive. Only until you actually give it some time will you know if it is actually counterproductive.
I mentioned Eclipse in the context of employment above because I was in exactly that situation -- on top of which the company mandate required Eclipse running on Ubuntu. This was where I encountered Unity. It took me an hour to be sure it would be a significant productivity hit for the near future. It took me less than a week more to be sure it would be a productivity hit, contrasted with my preferred tools, forever.
QUOTE: Yes there were some valid points of changes to Unity that made us do things differently but did it really cripple us to where we couldn't function. I don't believe so.
There's a big difference between being a productivity suppressor and being a crippling obstacle. For many use cases, Ubuntu Unity is a productivity suppressor but not a crippling obstacle. For those use cases, Unity should be avoided, despite the fact you can still "function".
If the change is effective, efficient and well implemented or not.
Face it, you'll get a vocal minority who screams *loudest* with any change, in any situation. People develop a comfort zone, and disruption of that is very traumatic to them. Others are apathetic - they can take or leave what they're using or whatever change is coming their way, and yet another group seems to love the thrill of new discovery and experience. The fact is that *nix has been a platform that has attracted the last group most strongly over the last 15 years or so. The arrival of the first group among the *nix community is at the very least a sign of platform stability and maturity (among a USER base, not as a platform itself. I'm not implying that the platform is anything *but* mature and stable,) for this community. People are settled into their distribution, their desktop GUI, their overall *nix experience, and significant disruption of that comfort zone is deeply upsetting.
I don't see how Windows 8 is going to be any different. We should keep in mind that all of this change was obviously sparked by the revolutionary impact of (*sigh*) the iPad in realizing a successful consumer model for large format, touch-centric devices. Millions of users adopted that significant change enthusiastically. The problem with Windows 8 and the *nix solutions that try to shift toward a more touch-centric user experience is that they've got the cart before the horse. They're building OS platforms for hardware that hasn't really arrived for consumers - and so the model doesn't make sense. The Developer Preview made that clear. I've got a 22" touch screen HP monitor - and with such an interface, you could see where Windows 8 was going. With a mouse and keyboard, it was awkward.
Timing counts here, and synchronizing that timing seems to be a major challenge.
If you've been around long enough you'll remember - the adoption of the mouse and the GUI originally met with the same strong resistance.
If it works, it'll become adopted and standard. If it doesn't work, it'll fade away. But the transition will be the roughest part, and will create the most controversy, frustration and anger.
It doesn't really matter if that is well verbalized or not, if it is specific or general - the important thing is that we know it is going to happen.
(Late edit) - I think it is important to note, another part of the formula is if the change requires throwing out "the baby with the bathwater." We're seeing a lot of traditional models of user interface being completely abandoned when perhaps a *fork* is more logical. In much the same way that a classic limitation of Classic Mac OS was the lack of CLI accessibility but *nix, Windows and OS X retain command line access - can a touch-centric interface co-exist and compliment a traditional mouse-and-keyboard desktop GUI approach? I think this is a more difficult situation to address than it seems at first glance. With a fork comes fragmentation in platform, patches, and development. How many different user interfaces do we need? There haven't been this many different interfaces competing for widespread consumer attention since the end of the 16 bit era, nor the rapid turnover in which is dominant - and developers are increasingly finding it difficult to support apps across all of those different platforms. Further fragmentation makes it that much more difficult to accommodate cross-platform applications. There is no doubt the way we interface with our machines, how we use them, when, and why, is going through a critical inflection point - and that is going to shake everything up. I suppose it doesn't matter if you like change or not - you're going to be dealing with it a lot over the next 5 to 10 years.
Face it, you'll get a vocal minority who screams *loudest* with any change, in any situation. People develop a comfort zone, and disruption of that is very traumatic to them. Others are apathetic - they can take or leave what they're using or whatever change is coming their way, and yet another group seems to love the thrill of new discovery and experience. The fact is that *nix has been a platform that has attracted the last group most strongly over the last 15 years or so. The arrival of the first group among the *nix community is at the very least a sign of platform stability and maturity (among a USER base, not as a platform itself. I'm not implying that the platform is anything *but* mature and stable,) for this community. People are settled into their distribution, their desktop GUI, their overall *nix experience, and significant disruption of that comfort zone is deeply upsetting.
I don't see how Windows 8 is going to be any different. We should keep in mind that all of this change was obviously sparked by the revolutionary impact of (*sigh*) the iPad in realizing a successful consumer model for large format, touch-centric devices. Millions of users adopted that significant change enthusiastically. The problem with Windows 8 and the *nix solutions that try to shift toward a more touch-centric user experience is that they've got the cart before the horse. They're building OS platforms for hardware that hasn't really arrived for consumers - and so the model doesn't make sense. The Developer Preview made that clear. I've got a 22" touch screen HP monitor - and with such an interface, you could see where Windows 8 was going. With a mouse and keyboard, it was awkward.
Timing counts here, and synchronizing that timing seems to be a major challenge.
If you've been around long enough you'll remember - the adoption of the mouse and the GUI originally met with the same strong resistance.
If it works, it'll become adopted and standard. If it doesn't work, it'll fade away. But the transition will be the roughest part, and will create the most controversy, frustration and anger.
It doesn't really matter if that is well verbalized or not, if it is specific or general - the important thing is that we know it is going to happen.
(Late edit) - I think it is important to note, another part of the formula is if the change requires throwing out "the baby with the bathwater." We're seeing a lot of traditional models of user interface being completely abandoned when perhaps a *fork* is more logical. In much the same way that a classic limitation of Classic Mac OS was the lack of CLI accessibility but *nix, Windows and OS X retain command line access - can a touch-centric interface co-exist and compliment a traditional mouse-and-keyboard desktop GUI approach? I think this is a more difficult situation to address than it seems at first glance. With a fork comes fragmentation in platform, patches, and development. How many different user interfaces do we need? There haven't been this many different interfaces competing for widespread consumer attention since the end of the 16 bit era, nor the rapid turnover in which is dominant - and developers are increasingly finding it difficult to support apps across all of those different platforms. Further fragmentation makes it that much more difficult to accommodate cross-platform applications. There is no doubt the way we interface with our machines, how we use them, when, and why, is going through a critical inflection point - and that is going to shake everything up. I suppose it doesn't matter if you like change or not - you're going to be dealing with it a lot over the next 5 to 10 years.
And I honestly do hope they do (at least eventually) fork development to include a desktop version, trying to do real work on tablets, or a desktop/laptop using a touch-oriented OS is going to be a major pain.
This has to be the single most lucid, well considered, engaging, rational, on-the-money 645 words I have ever seen produced under the name dcolbert. After one riveting read, I think every word of it is true. Please don't edit further unless you discover a typo I overlooked: I would not wish to see its excellence damaged.
Good work.
Good work.
To borrow a quote from Dennis Miller:
"Life is about change... In fact, Life is like riding the bus; It *requires* change!"
And, not to pick nits here, but, I would like to clarify and/or ask for some clarification on a couple of points here:
"If you've been around long enough you'll remember - the adoption of the mouse and the GUI originally met with the same strong resistance."
Okay, I never saw much of this resistance to the mouse at the consumer level as I was coming up. I remember when the teacher of the computer lab in high school brought in the first mouse I'd ever seen. She brought it in for one of the Atari 800s and, of course, all of us in the class were REAL interested in checking it out. Most of us were of the opinion that it was probably a *great* thing if it didn't break as fast as the Atari joysticks usually did. And, as far as the GUI's, if you were a Commodore fan during that time, you probably already had a good time with GEOS on the Commodore 128, or even the early version of Mac OS for the Apple crowd. Most of us didn't even know that Sun, HP and a few others were long since running with mice and GUIs before that because no one had that much money to spend on a computer for their house. Heck, you could have a pool put into your backyard for less than it cost to get a Sun Workstation set up back then. And, how many here have ever seen some of the old Sun retroflective-metal "mousepads" for their optical mice? Okay...
So, where was this resistance to the mouse? Moving from DOS to =Windows 3.1.1? After all, the first real "widespread consumer-grade" GUI was Windows 95, and apart from the issues that arose with would-be competitors to that interface, I didn't hear much resistance to the GUI. I heard the issues between Microsoft and IBM with regards to OS/2 and I also remember when they turned Windows from a graphical shell over DOS to DOS being a shell in Windows.
"If it works, it'll become adopted and standard. If it doesn't work, it'll fade away."
Now, *here* is where I saw the most resistance to change during that period; Going from *ANY* of those 6502 platforms to the IBM PC(/jr.)? Give up graphics. Give up color. Give up sound. For what? The IBM name. Yeah, there were quite a few that had an issue with that.
But, it *did* become the standard! And, from around that same time, who remembers the arguments between BetaMax and VHS? Well, there ya go.
"Life is about change... In fact, Life is like riding the bus; It *requires* change!"
And, not to pick nits here, but, I would like to clarify and/or ask for some clarification on a couple of points here:
"If you've been around long enough you'll remember - the adoption of the mouse and the GUI originally met with the same strong resistance."
Okay, I never saw much of this resistance to the mouse at the consumer level as I was coming up. I remember when the teacher of the computer lab in high school brought in the first mouse I'd ever seen. She brought it in for one of the Atari 800s and, of course, all of us in the class were REAL interested in checking it out. Most of us were of the opinion that it was probably a *great* thing if it didn't break as fast as the Atari joysticks usually did. And, as far as the GUI's, if you were a Commodore fan during that time, you probably already had a good time with GEOS on the Commodore 128, or even the early version of Mac OS for the Apple crowd. Most of us didn't even know that Sun, HP and a few others were long since running with mice and GUIs before that because no one had that much money to spend on a computer for their house. Heck, you could have a pool put into your backyard for less than it cost to get a Sun Workstation set up back then. And, how many here have ever seen some of the old Sun retroflective-metal "mousepads" for their optical mice? Okay...
So, where was this resistance to the mouse? Moving from DOS to =Windows 3.1.1? After all, the first real "widespread consumer-grade" GUI was Windows 95, and apart from the issues that arose with would-be competitors to that interface, I didn't hear much resistance to the GUI. I heard the issues between Microsoft and IBM with regards to OS/2 and I also remember when they turned Windows from a graphical shell over DOS to DOS being a shell in Windows.
"If it works, it'll become adopted and standard. If it doesn't work, it'll fade away."
Now, *here* is where I saw the most resistance to change during that period; Going from *ANY* of those 6502 platforms to the IBM PC(/jr.)? Give up graphics. Give up color. Give up sound. For what? The IBM name. Yeah, there were quite a few that had an issue with that.
But, it *did* become the standard! And, from around that same time, who remembers the arguments between BetaMax and VHS? Well, there ya go.
Stable, works well, does the job. IT staff don't want to reinvent the wheel all over again to "catch-up" with tablet market. Windows 8 should be tablet add-on. Not a cash grab.
I have no intention on going back to Windows, very very happy with my conversion to OSX.
You're a funny one. Not only is the "four horses comment absolutely funny, but it's sadly true. You would think that we all were hearing the pounding of hooves for a while.
For my part, I think the Windows fanboys should be fair but I don't think they will be. Although I have seen some pretty upset people on other blogs, the verdict is still out on this one.
I haven't seen Windows 8 with the exception of pictures but it appears for the most part all they did was to pull the Start menu out onto the desktop in the form of tiles (whatever that brings us). Woohoo, let's throw a party for the Start menu. I for one am glad it's gone. Going to the Start menu to Shutdown is just bad interface.
Bring on the negative votes...
For my part, I think the Windows fanboys should be fair but I don't think they will be. Although I have seen some pretty upset people on other blogs, the verdict is still out on this one.
I haven't seen Windows 8 with the exception of pictures but it appears for the most part all they did was to pull the Start menu out onto the desktop in the form of tiles (whatever that brings us). Woohoo, let's throw a party for the Start menu. I for one am glad it's gone. Going to the Start menu to Shutdown is just bad interface.
Bring on the negative votes...
... seen windows 8 "with the exception of pictures," don't make assumptions. There's a big usability difference, and many of us find it to our detriment. Grab the public beta... er, "preview," stick it in a VM or on a test machine, and try it for yourself.
I complain about it because I *have* been trying to use it. I'm past the initial "Wait, woah, this is new" phase and still basically have to force myself to use the Win8 machine. It is, to me, an unpleasant experience and a decided step backward in usablilty on a standard mouse-and-keyboard setup. I haven't tried it on a tablet and can see where it would be useful there, true - but not on my plain old desktop.
I complain about it because I *have* been trying to use it. I'm past the initial "Wait, woah, this is new" phase and still basically have to force myself to use the Win8 machine. It is, to me, an unpleasant experience and a decided step backward in usablilty on a standard mouse-and-keyboard setup. I haven't tried it on a tablet and can see where it would be useful there, true - but not on my plain old desktop.
I can recommend installing Cinnamon as a way of restoring the usability of the interface on Gnome 3. It also has the added benefit of putting back the performance that I lost.
I have tried Cinnamon and a number of other Desktops. I usually end up using Classic Gnome or XFCE. For one thing, I use the panels and they are supported (better) under those 2 desktops. I do miss the "cabinet drawer" where I could keep less used app launchers out of the way. Those 2 Desktops are a lot closer to Gnome 2 functionality than Cinnamon.
A couple of weeks ago a user tried the beta of windows 8 on his Asus netbook which includes a touchscreen, and he wasn't happy with it. So to me it looks as if there will be plenty of scepsis with windows 8. Apart from that he was using it on a PC that is meant for that OS. For non tablet like PC users I don't think the OS will get a lot of followers. I expect the same type of downgrade to Windows 7 that happened with Vista and XP. Many who buy PC's with a pre-installed Windows 8 will want to downgrade...
As a user of Windows that runs solely in a VM setting, I don't really have a problem with those changes. As far as my clients go, I only care about whether or not they are able to do their work with their machines. If they like it, I have no reason to tell them otherwise.
Most of the time the only reason for me to be sitting behind a Windows machine is to troubleshoot. As long as this new "desktop-metaphor" does not stand in the way of doing that, I see zero reason to approach Microsoft with the same wrath as I would to Ubuntu Unity or Gnome3.
Most of the time the only reason for me to be sitting behind a Windows machine is to troubleshoot. As long as this new "desktop-metaphor" does not stand in the way of doing that, I see zero reason to approach Microsoft with the same wrath as I would to Ubuntu Unity or Gnome3.
Remember Vista? Under-performing, lots of annoyances, no real added value. Businesses stayed away from it in droves. And Microsoft felt the pressure.
Windows 8 could easily get the same cold shoulder if it is perceived as having the same negatives. If that happens, any amount of marketing won't change that.
Windows 8 could easily get the same cold shoulder if it is perceived as having the same negatives. If that happens, any amount of marketing won't change that.
The main thing that disturbs me is that this seems to be a change just for the sake of making a change. Win 8 (I've played with it a bit) seems to be definitely targeted toward touch screen devices. Touch screen devices aren't very useful for anything that requires keyboard input. So, why change the entire system specifically to work better on a device that most people don't have? Does anyone think laptop and desktop computers are going away anytime soon? Or keyboards in the office? I certainly don't. I agree that the touch screen desktop should be an alternate desktop that can be selected if needed. Kind of like you can load both KDE and GNOME on your system and load up whichever you feel like working with when you log in.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. It seems to me that both Microsoft and Canonical are aiming mostly at the home user market, where a significant number of people will use or change to table-style devices. And on those devices Unity or Windows8 will (one day) shine. On normal office equipment, geared for high productivity via keyboard and mouse, they just get in the way.
What I do not understand is why the various companies (or, in the case of *nix distros, communities) aren't more flexible in providing alternatives. Give the user a choice when they install or upgrade. Let them decide whether they want to use a touch-screen technology or a something else. And make it so that users can change their minds later on. Most Linux distros have this ability (I am a Debian user and I try out different desktops all the time), so it can't be that hard to implement.
What I do not understand is why the various companies (or, in the case of *nix distros, communities) aren't more flexible in providing alternatives. Give the user a choice when they install or upgrade. Let them decide whether they want to use a touch-screen technology or a something else. And make it so that users can change their minds later on. Most Linux distros have this ability (I am a Debian user and I try out different desktops all the time), so it can't be that hard to implement.
QUOTE: Most Linux distros have this ability (I am a Debian user and I try out different desktops all the time), so it can't be that hard to implement.
It's easy with the X Window System. It's not as easy with a monolithic UI environment like the one built into MS Windows.
It's easy with the X Window System. It's not as easy with a monolithic UI environment like the one built into MS Windows.
I too will try different Desktops. Currently, I prefer Gnome Classic and XFCE. However, the typical home user with a PC will not be thrilled with a tablet I/F and won't know enough to install a different Desktop (in case of Linux - probably no readily obvious choice for Win. 8). Since I have not been able to get either the Developer Preview nor the Consumer Preview of Win. 9 to install in VirtualBox (on a Win. 7 machine), I can't comment on how easy it is to switch back to "classic" and "restore" the Start button. If it isn't satisfactory, someone will eventually develop a "Desktop replacement".
I think Mint is one of those distro's that does the best of this. It uses gnome 3 but adds it's own interface to make it usable on standard PC's. No wonder it is top of the list on distrowatch, and I think it'll stay there for some time.
QUOTE: Does anyone think laptop and desktop computers are going away anytime soon?
Yes -- some people do think that. Really. It boggles my mind.
Yes -- some people do think that. Really. It boggles my mind.
I have the Iconia Tab W500 with W8CP installed. With the tablet docked to it's keyboard and a wireless mouse connected I found myself using all 3 input methods. Sometimes moving my hand from the mouse to the touch screen was quicker than using the mouse alone. When I went back to my W7 laptop I found myself wanting to touch the screen to provide input.
As I have now had the opportunity to load Windows 8 into a virtual under Ubuntu and play around a little with it, and being well-versed with various windows interfaces over its history, I would have to think that the average Windows user will find it to be more or less a form of culture shock. The Metro "tabletized" main screen is so far away from anything resembling Windows that unless the user has a little experience with tablet computing, they'll wonder where everything is. Power users, who would probably be able to find their way around the interface (eventually) will find this new approach to the Windows desktop to be a bane to productivity. I would expect that enterprise customers will have to figure out a way to roll out Windows 8 in Desktop mode so as not to cause too much upheaval in the workplace. If I'm an enterprise customer, I'd not move to Windows 8, and speaking for myself personally, Windows 7 will likely be the last version of Windows I expect to use regularly. I would rather go to Linux full-time than put up with the Playskool-like look and feel of Metro. I realize Microsoft needs to distinguish the Windows tablet interface from Android and iOS, but making it look cheap and silly can't be the way to do it. And that's just the Metro part.
My first reaction to the Desktop was one of, "Where's the start button?!?!? How do I shut this down?" Well, a little playing around resulted in the realization that I had to exit back out (ctrl-esc) to the Metro interface and then do some more exploring to find the shutdown function. Not efficient. Fortunately, I noticed someone recently posted a blog on putting the start button back into the Desktop interface. As I haven't actually read the blog yet, I can only hope that such allows for shutting down directly from there.
The much-ballyhooed ribbon, oddly enough, makes more sense in the OS interface than it does in Office, and actually does make certain tasks easier. I suppose I could get used to that, even though I've always hated the feature in Office.
That's about as far as time allowed me to explore in Windows 8. But so far, I can see millions finding themselves late for the door out of the Windows world.
My first reaction to the Desktop was one of, "Where's the start button?!?!? How do I shut this down?" Well, a little playing around resulted in the realization that I had to exit back out (ctrl-esc) to the Metro interface and then do some more exploring to find the shutdown function. Not efficient. Fortunately, I noticed someone recently posted a blog on putting the start button back into the Desktop interface. As I haven't actually read the blog yet, I can only hope that such allows for shutting down directly from there.
The much-ballyhooed ribbon, oddly enough, makes more sense in the OS interface than it does in Office, and actually does make certain tasks easier. I suppose I could get used to that, even though I've always hated the feature in Office.
That's about as far as time allowed me to explore in Windows 8. But so far, I can see millions finding themselves late for the door out of the Windows world.
Win2k was, at the time, the best MS Windows release yet. For reasons related to marketing and user inertia, though, it was not as big a success as it should probably have been at the time.
While WinME was a horrid mess that Microsoft does not even want to admit existed these days. It was released in a hurry to try to capture the home user market that had not felt a burning need to buy anything from Microsoft for a few years (still using Win98, skipping Win2k because they didn't understand it).
WinXP slathered a Fisher-Price interface across Win2k, cut out some minor pieces of basic functionality that actually helped make it so good, and oriented it more toward end users who like big, primary-color buttons, flashing lights, and exciting noises (i.e. infants and toddlers). Until the arrival of Service Pack 2, Win2k was still the better bet for serious "power users"; during the SP2 transition, things were a disaster area; after the dust settled, SP2 made WinXP into a heavily-supported OS without which Win2k users were increasingly being discarded by Microsoft along with the OS itself.
Now, compare with more recent OSes:
Vista was rushed out to capture a home user maker that had not felt a burning need to buy anything new from MS Windows at the time, and has already largely been swept into the dustbin of history apart from unfortunate cases where people feel "stuck" with it. It is very quickly becoming the new WinME.
Win7 was a better release -- something of a workhorse OS, and definitely the best MS Windows offering in the post-WinXP world, so far.
Win8 is starting to look like a Fisher-Price (or as you put it, Playskool) widget set pasted over Win7, removing or obscuring some minor bits of functionality that helped make Win7 useful.
The timelines don't exactly match up, but there definitely seems to be something of a three-point pattern emerging. I'm curious to see how it plays out.
While WinME was a horrid mess that Microsoft does not even want to admit existed these days. It was released in a hurry to try to capture the home user market that had not felt a burning need to buy anything from Microsoft for a few years (still using Win98, skipping Win2k because they didn't understand it).
WinXP slathered a Fisher-Price interface across Win2k, cut out some minor pieces of basic functionality that actually helped make it so good, and oriented it more toward end users who like big, primary-color buttons, flashing lights, and exciting noises (i.e. infants and toddlers). Until the arrival of Service Pack 2, Win2k was still the better bet for serious "power users"; during the SP2 transition, things were a disaster area; after the dust settled, SP2 made WinXP into a heavily-supported OS without which Win2k users were increasingly being discarded by Microsoft along with the OS itself.
Now, compare with more recent OSes:
Vista was rushed out to capture a home user maker that had not felt a burning need to buy anything new from MS Windows at the time, and has already largely been swept into the dustbin of history apart from unfortunate cases where people feel "stuck" with it. It is very quickly becoming the new WinME.
Win7 was a better release -- something of a workhorse OS, and definitely the best MS Windows offering in the post-WinXP world, so far.
Win8 is starting to look like a Fisher-Price (or as you put it, Playskool) widget set pasted over Win7, removing or obscuring some minor bits of functionality that helped make Win7 useful.
The timelines don't exactly match up, but there definitely seems to be something of a three-point pattern emerging. I'm curious to see how it plays out.
It'd be nice if Microsoft could learn from the example of the biblical Saint Peter, and become a fisher of men. Instead, it regards them all as having a price, and tries to buy them.
For me, and I suspect a large number of the dissatisfied people out there, the issue is usability. Most people who migrate away from windows do so because they like the freedom to modify the operating system to suit their needs. The people who stay with windows are the people who don't really care about the operating system. They just want something that works with a minimum of fuss. As such, if windows 8 is able to function moderately well, most windows users will remain loyal. What choice do they have. But Linux users are not windows users. We are used to configurability and that is exactly what Unity took away. Canonical turned its back on its loyal customers and their desires. They did so for the hope of a future where they dominate the tablet market. They introduced Unity with a Gnome fallback. Then when most people took the fallback they removed it. Then when users started moving to Kubuntu they removed support for that also. It is hard to understand the desire to force something on people that they do not want. Windows users will knuckle under and take it because they have no choice. There may be grumbling, but there will be no outcry as happened with Unity and Gnome. Linux users will simply move on to another flavor of Linux. (I hear bodhi is quite nice. Ubuntu without Unity or Gnome.)
To be fair to Canonical, they're at the mercy of the GNOME team (as are other distros). Sure, they came out with Unity to have something that fits tablets & smartphones, but they were likely also motivated by the imminent demise of the GNOME 2 we all know & love. That wasn't Canonical's decision, though, it was the GNOME team that "turned its back on its loyal customers". And they had reasons ("outdated technology" is often cited).
That leaves Unity and GNOME 3... It's hard to blame Canonical when they don't pre-install GNOME 3 -- for two reasons: One, it's a direct competitor with Unity (a desktop-or-tablet UI), and two, it's still in a state of flux as it matures. Things are changing...
I've been using GNOME 3 in Ubuntu (when I'm not running 'Natty' & GNOME 2) -- it's usable, and I know this isn't "all there is" to it (given its extensibility). And though I like it, I'll still keep an eye on what Unity evolves into, just as I'm hoping GNOME 3 evolves into an better UI. Things are changing...
That leaves Unity and GNOME 3... It's hard to blame Canonical when they don't pre-install GNOME 3 -- for two reasons: One, it's a direct competitor with Unity (a desktop-or-tablet UI), and two, it's still in a state of flux as it matures. Things are changing...
I've been using GNOME 3 in Ubuntu (when I'm not running 'Natty' & GNOME 2) -- it's usable, and I know this isn't "all there is" to it (given its extensibility). And though I like it, I'll still keep an eye on what Unity evolves into, just as I'm hoping GNOME 3 evolves into an better UI. Things are changing...
That's right , Bodhi is nice (e17 is my favorite desktop currently). But it is takes more effort to get working the way you want, and for Linux newcomers it is probably too complicated. For those I think Mint is currently the best OS available.
Obviously, Jack hasn't been following the build8 website (not that I would expect him to as it is Windows after all and not Linux). The defecation has been hitting the spinning device for months. I personally hate it. My impression is this: if you are a 20 -30 something that lives for Facebook, then you'll most likely like/love it. If you're under 50 or so, you'll probably can take it or leave it. If you're, over 50 (this includes me) or administrating a domain (also includes me), then you probably won't care for it. I work in a library in SE Ohio, where grandma & grandpa are just getting used to Win7, and I can see this as a HUGE problem in what they can do with a pc. They have to learn all over again. Now I am not above learning, every time something new comes along there is a learning curve, that's life. But I don't see this as necessary, forcing Metro on us doesn't make sense (to me). MS is going to cause a lot of hard feelings over being force fed Metro
Dan
Dan
I don't see most county agencies picking up on W8. Heck, most of the agency computers are still XP. In my experience, county agencies are totally dependent on their software vendors. I did a new install in February of last year, 2011. The software vendor certified their program to work on Windows 2003 R2 Servers and WIndows XP Pro workstations. They were using SQL Server 2005. Early this year they finally upgraded their software to work with Windows 7. I'm sure I'll be able to get a W8 workstation to work, but the first one will probably be a real pain.
I'm being a little dramatic, I know, but I have yet to read an opinion here that aligns with reality.
Myth #1: Windows 8 was designed only for tablets/People will downgrade to Win 7
Its has a similar desktop OS to Win7 underneath which will comfort users resistant to change, but it primarily changes the underpinning of the OS to accept newer technologies and inputs. For example, people have rightly said that the interface feels more at home on a tablet, but that's because they haven't experienced a Kinect interface design. MS has released a desktop version of Kinect for Windows that I think may remove at least half of ones need for a mouse. It will make navigating the desktop equally intuitive to navigating a tablet.
Myth #2: Win8 is a response to iOS
Win8 is not inspired by iOS, it is an extension of a direction Microsoft has been moving in since 2006. Remember the "ribbon bar" introduction in Office 2007? This is part of that design direction.
Myth #3: Its change for the sake of change
This is the most frequently espoused nonsense in relation to Win8. The OS is dramatically different not just on the outside, but on the inside. WinRT is the new kernel that will replace Explorer. Explorer is still there for compatibility, but WinRT is the future of the Windows interface and does the heavy lifting. Without a new kernel Windows will be limited in what it can do down the road. This change is for the future of the platform, not just to be "different".
Myth #4: The change is counterproductive
People said the same thing about the ribbon bar before they got used to it. Once one learns the ribbon it is far more productive than menu's ever were, especially when used in conjunction with keyboard shortcuts. Just because one cannot see how the final product will be used does not mean the final product will be less productive. Microsoft wants you to be more productive on its platform. The more productive you are, the more copies of their software they will sell. What's counterproductive isn't the product but people's willingness to learn a new way of getting things done.
Myth #5: I am a Microsoft fanboy
I've mentioned numerous times in comments to Jack's articles that I am an avid Ubuntu user and appreciate the new Unity interface. I use both Linux and Windows systems every day and honestly have no preference of one over another.
Myth #1: Windows 8 was designed only for tablets/People will downgrade to Win 7
Its has a similar desktop OS to Win7 underneath which will comfort users resistant to change, but it primarily changes the underpinning of the OS to accept newer technologies and inputs. For example, people have rightly said that the interface feels more at home on a tablet, but that's because they haven't experienced a Kinect interface design. MS has released a desktop version of Kinect for Windows that I think may remove at least half of ones need for a mouse. It will make navigating the desktop equally intuitive to navigating a tablet.
Myth #2: Win8 is a response to iOS
Win8 is not inspired by iOS, it is an extension of a direction Microsoft has been moving in since 2006. Remember the "ribbon bar" introduction in Office 2007? This is part of that design direction.
Myth #3: Its change for the sake of change
This is the most frequently espoused nonsense in relation to Win8. The OS is dramatically different not just on the outside, but on the inside. WinRT is the new kernel that will replace Explorer. Explorer is still there for compatibility, but WinRT is the future of the Windows interface and does the heavy lifting. Without a new kernel Windows will be limited in what it can do down the road. This change is for the future of the platform, not just to be "different".
Myth #4: The change is counterproductive
People said the same thing about the ribbon bar before they got used to it. Once one learns the ribbon it is far more productive than menu's ever were, especially when used in conjunction with keyboard shortcuts. Just because one cannot see how the final product will be used does not mean the final product will be less productive. Microsoft wants you to be more productive on its platform. The more productive you are, the more copies of their software they will sell. What's counterproductive isn't the product but people's willingness to learn a new way of getting things done.
Myth #5: I am a Microsoft fanboy
I've mentioned numerous times in comments to Jack's articles that I am an avid Ubuntu user and appreciate the new Unity interface. I use both Linux and Windows systems every day and honestly have no preference of one over another.
Myth A: Saying Win8 was designed for tablets is the same as saying it was designed only for tablets, and predicting that people will favor Win7 over Win8 is a sign the speaker is an idiot.
QUOTE: Myth #1: Windows 8 was designed only for tablets/People will downgrade to Win 7
Win8 was obviously not designed only for tablets, but it appears so far to be designed primarily for tablets, to the extent that getting at the desktop-oriented functionality of the system had become just a little bit more difficult. Just as Vista users went back to the comfort of XP, it is likely that some Win8 users will go back to Win7 to escape UI paradigm issues with Win8. The question that arises is not whether people will choose Win7 over Win8, but how many.
Myth B: Calling Win8 a response to iOS is a sign the speaker is an idiot.
QUOTE: Myth #2: Win8 is a response to iOS
To a significant degree, any tablet-oriented initiative (including the obvious tablet-oriented features included in the UI paradigm built into Win8) is a response to iOS, because of the tremendous popularity of devices running iOS. To pretend these things occur in a vacuum is silly.
The ribbon itself was an attempt to control feature complexity and mitigate information overload for users of MS Office, which is bigger than many modern operating systems and many times as complex. While there do appear to be some lessons learned from development of the ribbon in the Metro UI, I do not think the Metro UI is as much an obvious evolution of the ribbon's direction as you appear to think. Yes, the UI is being simplified and contextualized in some ways, but that is only a small part of the complete philosophy evident in a UI that looks like Metro.
Myth C: Calling something change for the sake of change is a sign the speaker is an idiot.
QUOTE: Myth #3: Its change for the sake of change
Of course it's not change for the sake of change -- but it sure as heck looks like it to a lot of people whose use cases and usage models are in no way served by these changes. The appearance of "change for the sake of change" is only enhanced by the way developers and vendors try to "force" people to accept a whole new UI paradigm whether it's to their advantage to do so or not, too.
Myth D: The fact one person likes the change means nobody else will find it counterproductive, and the fact one person liked a previous change similarly means a new change will be all roses and puppy dogs.
QUOTE: Myth #4: The change is counterproductive
The ribbon actually is counterproductive for some users, and your apparent inability to recognize that a lot of people are not very much like you in their preferences and needs with regard to computing environments seems to blind you to that fact. Furthermore, the biggest problem with the ribbon is not the ribbon itself -- it's the underlying problem of unneeded, compounded complexity in the MS Office suite that raised the need for a solution like the ribbon in the first place. The ribbon is tantamount to a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.
If a new UI does not actually make the working conditions of users more efficient, it is counterproductive. Worst-case scenario: people waste time unproductively by learning the new UI, and in the end find that everything is still less efficient than it was before, resulting in gross loss of productivity for the entire life of the UI. Mediocre-case scenario: people spend the time to learn the new UI, then end up with something that does not appreciably alter the efficiency of what they do once they're used to it, resulting in a limited period of significant productivity loss that is never recovered over the entire life of the UI. Middling-case scenario: people invest time to learn the new UI, and end up with something that increases efficiency for them, resulting in an increase of productivity once they've gotten used to it that just manages to break even with the initial lost productivity when the vendor in question pushes a new UI that makes everyone go back to step 1 again. Best-case scenario: people invest time to learn the new UI, end up with something that increases efficiency once they've learned it sufficiently well, and have enough time to not only make up for initial lost time, but actually go on to get greater gains than the losses incurred by the initial investment.
In every single case, there is at least a limited period of counterproductive consequences of change. While that counterproductivity may eventually be overcome in the long run by enhanced productivity, at least for some people, there is no guarantee that such enhanced productivity will apply to everyone, or even to most people. Measuring the return on investment in learning a new UI is often difficult to do before people have had time to actually make that investment, especially in cases where productivity really matters substantially.
Myth E: People know who you are.
QUOTE: Myth #5: I am a Microsoft fanboy
Is that really a pervasive myth at all? I don't even know who you are, despite the fact it seems I live about an hour's drive away from you and have been a regular at TR for a decade or so.
QUOTE: Myth #1: Windows 8 was designed only for tablets/People will downgrade to Win 7
Win8 was obviously not designed only for tablets, but it appears so far to be designed primarily for tablets, to the extent that getting at the desktop-oriented functionality of the system had become just a little bit more difficult. Just as Vista users went back to the comfort of XP, it is likely that some Win8 users will go back to Win7 to escape UI paradigm issues with Win8. The question that arises is not whether people will choose Win7 over Win8, but how many.
Myth B: Calling Win8 a response to iOS is a sign the speaker is an idiot.
QUOTE: Myth #2: Win8 is a response to iOS
To a significant degree, any tablet-oriented initiative (including the obvious tablet-oriented features included in the UI paradigm built into Win8) is a response to iOS, because of the tremendous popularity of devices running iOS. To pretend these things occur in a vacuum is silly.
The ribbon itself was an attempt to control feature complexity and mitigate information overload for users of MS Office, which is bigger than many modern operating systems and many times as complex. While there do appear to be some lessons learned from development of the ribbon in the Metro UI, I do not think the Metro UI is as much an obvious evolution of the ribbon's direction as you appear to think. Yes, the UI is being simplified and contextualized in some ways, but that is only a small part of the complete philosophy evident in a UI that looks like Metro.
Myth C: Calling something change for the sake of change is a sign the speaker is an idiot.
QUOTE: Myth #3: Its change for the sake of change
Of course it's not change for the sake of change -- but it sure as heck looks like it to a lot of people whose use cases and usage models are in no way served by these changes. The appearance of "change for the sake of change" is only enhanced by the way developers and vendors try to "force" people to accept a whole new UI paradigm whether it's to their advantage to do so or not, too.
Myth D: The fact one person likes the change means nobody else will find it counterproductive, and the fact one person liked a previous change similarly means a new change will be all roses and puppy dogs.
QUOTE: Myth #4: The change is counterproductive
The ribbon actually is counterproductive for some users, and your apparent inability to recognize that a lot of people are not very much like you in their preferences and needs with regard to computing environments seems to blind you to that fact. Furthermore, the biggest problem with the ribbon is not the ribbon itself -- it's the underlying problem of unneeded, compounded complexity in the MS Office suite that raised the need for a solution like the ribbon in the first place. The ribbon is tantamount to a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.
If a new UI does not actually make the working conditions of users more efficient, it is counterproductive. Worst-case scenario: people waste time unproductively by learning the new UI, and in the end find that everything is still less efficient than it was before, resulting in gross loss of productivity for the entire life of the UI. Mediocre-case scenario: people spend the time to learn the new UI, then end up with something that does not appreciably alter the efficiency of what they do once they're used to it, resulting in a limited period of significant productivity loss that is never recovered over the entire life of the UI. Middling-case scenario: people invest time to learn the new UI, and end up with something that increases efficiency for them, resulting in an increase of productivity once they've gotten used to it that just manages to break even with the initial lost productivity when the vendor in question pushes a new UI that makes everyone go back to step 1 again. Best-case scenario: people invest time to learn the new UI, end up with something that increases efficiency once they've learned it sufficiently well, and have enough time to not only make up for initial lost time, but actually go on to get greater gains than the losses incurred by the initial investment.
In every single case, there is at least a limited period of counterproductive consequences of change. While that counterproductivity may eventually be overcome in the long run by enhanced productivity, at least for some people, there is no guarantee that such enhanced productivity will apply to everyone, or even to most people. Measuring the return on investment in learning a new UI is often difficult to do before people have had time to actually make that investment, especially in cases where productivity really matters substantially.
Myth E: People know who you are.
QUOTE: Myth #5: I am a Microsoft fanboy
Is that really a pervasive myth at all? I don't even know who you are, despite the fact it seems I live about an hour's drive away from you and have been a regular at TR for a decade or so.
I don't see many businesses rushing out to replace cheap mice with $150 Kinect devices. I don't see workplace users waving their arms around all day; certainly not power users who already complain about how far the mouse takes their fingers away from the keyboard.
Waving your arms around all day of course keeps you fit. So at the end of the day you won't have to go to the fitness studio or keep tabs on what you eat. I think there is great potential here on keeping the users healthy...
"We connecting everyone to the network printer farthest from you. This will both encourage exercise and discourage unnecessary printing. Those requiring color printers will be connected to ones in other facilities."
As someone who has used the kinect, it has its place in games but it is a horrible UI. Navigating simple menus in games is tedious and requires far too much attention for what should be extremely simple tasks. (Is the room bright enough? Am I in the right place? Am I on the right button? No, too low? too high? ok now I'll just hold this position for 2 seconds to confirm my choice.).
Whether Unity or subway (metro), if you are using a mouse and keyboard, it just isn't intuitive. It takes at least 100 more clicks to get to the same place you can with the standard Windows 7 or Gnome or KDE interface. I don't want to use a PC like a TV. I want to get to the option I want directly, and that is normally not the case on a TV, there you have to invest at least 15 minutes until you have found the option to fine tune a channel or something similar. In a Normal OS you can normally reach such options within seconds...
Nothing about any version of Windows is 'intuitive'. I think what you mean is that Metro doesn't conform to the behaviors you used in previous versions of Windows. Those behaviors had to be learned; the problem is W8 requires a different set of behaviors we haven't learned yet (and shouldn't have to).
"For example, people have rightly said that the interface feels more at home on a tablet, but that's because they haven't experienced a Kinect"
Okay I'll byte...... Why in God's name do I want that in a production environment? MS needs to wake up.....business time is not "play" time. And why do I want to spend more of my nearly non-existent budget on toys?
"People said the same thing about the ribbon bar before they got used to it."
Been using it since 2007.....I still hate it and prefer the Office 2000/LibreOffice taskbar
Okay I'll byte...... Why in God's name do I want that in a production environment? MS needs to wake up.....business time is not "play" time. And why do I want to spend more of my nearly non-existent budget on toys?
"People said the same thing about the ribbon bar before they got used to it."
Been using it since 2007.....I still hate it and prefer the Office 2000/LibreOffice taskbar
I know, I know, you're supposed to try it 1st before commenting but this is Steve Balmer and Microsoft we're talking about. Vista's motto should have been "The Ow Begins Now" I will be surprised it they pull any truly positive innovations out of their hats. At best, it will be a bad clone of something better.
Yes, I clung to my KDE 3.5 till just 3 months ago but the KDE 4 team took a while to work out some of their bugs, and to be honest I'm still a little ticked that they decided to demote Konqueror to being a web browser from the excellent file manager it's always been. That said I'm glad they they included the restricted extras and they've done a good job with the widgets.
I doubt Windoze can ever add that kind of innovation, they've just become way too stagnant.
Yes, I clung to my KDE 3.5 till just 3 months ago but the KDE 4 team took a while to work out some of their bugs, and to be honest I'm still a little ticked that they decided to demote Konqueror to being a web browser from the excellent file manager it's always been. That said I'm glad they they included the restricted extras and they've done a good job with the widgets.
I doubt Windoze can ever add that kind of innovation, they've just become way too stagnant.
I really don't see where the Metro UI is trying to clone anything anyone else did. I don't think anyone else of note in the OS UI design market would have done that bad a job of designing something they expected people to use on desktop systems.
"I just want to know if the same community that disparaged the Linux desktop developers ... will do the same to Microsoft."
How much overlap is there between Linux and Windows users communities? I submit that those who criticized the Linux desktop changes may take the same attitude toward W8, but that most users of previous Windows versions haven't seen a Gnome, KDE, or Unity and don't have an opinion of them, good or bad, old versions or new.
How much overlap is there between Linux and Windows users communities? I submit that those who criticized the Linux desktop changes may take the same attitude toward W8, but that most users of previous Windows versions haven't seen a Gnome, KDE, or Unity and don't have an opinion of them, good or bad, old versions or new.
Everyone one is actually complaining (flat UI, where are the colours?, start button?, etc.), I mean everyone, but why not demanding less change? MS says "Win8 is for touch". That's it.
Everyone wants, no needs, touch and if MS could get tactile feedback and siri-like interface squeezed in, the complaints, grumbles and even murmurs would disappear as well and total cognitive dissonance would reign supreme! Love to Hate it!
...Now how do I find the recycle bin?
Everyone wants, no needs, touch and if MS could get tactile feedback and siri-like interface squeezed in, the complaints, grumbles and even murmurs would disappear as well and total cognitive dissonance would reign supreme! Love to Hate it!
...Now how do I find the recycle bin?
Odd, I seem to be getting along just fine without it.
"...Now how do I find the recycle bin?"
Look around you; perhaps you've already found it?
"...Now how do I find the recycle bin?"
Look around you; perhaps you've already found it?
the only thing that stays the same is change. If things did not change then computers would still be the size of rooms. I think that changes that brought about Windows 8 may or may not be good but without testing them I can not make an opinion.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
