The Great Modern UI Debate Thread

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I dont mind modern apps, I just wish that they wern't dumbed down so much to the point of just being barely usable. IF modern apps were as full featured as x64 apps then I say go for it, specially if using a mouse/keyboard. 
Maybe Windows 11 they can have it like Windows 10, where without a keyboard you get the touch version which is like the dumbed down version of Windows with the god awful Modern UI tiles, and people with Keyboard and mouse get not only full fledged windows, but modern apps that arnt dumbed down as well, so we get the full experience. 

[PGHammer]

I'm still using Windows 7 on my primary machine.  All my programs are traditional Windows programs... and I obviously can't use "Modern/Metro" apps on that machine even if I wanted to.

 

But I don't feel like I'm "missing" anything by not having "Modern/Metro" apps.  I don't feel like I'm "doing it wrong" by using a UI from 20 years ago.

 

I just use what I use.

 

My secondary machine is a Windows 8.1 ultrabook...  but I use my traditional Windows programs on that as well. I haven't found any reasons to search for "Modern/Metro" replacements for all my traditional Windows programs. (I really only use that laptop when I travel... I'm on my desktop computer 99% of the time)

 

So... "Modern/Metro" might be the greatest thing since sliced bread... and might be the UI for the 21st century... but I'm indifferent on the whole situation.

That's fine - that's not even an issue (for me) - I use VERY few Modern apps, even on my notebook.  However, the reason for that is SPECIFICALLY due to their quality, and no other reason.  I've made that plain as well.  Still, I refuse to blame the UI for the application quality, as I have seen poor (in fact, downright horrible) Win32 applications.

 

Still, the choice of which to use is mine - not that of Microsoft, and having more choice is never a bad thing.

So why are folks treating the very idea of having an option (that does not conflict with Win32 in any sort of way) is akin to apostasy or heresy?  I was not aware that Win32 had suddenly become a religion - since when has Microsoft become Apple?

[PGHammer]

I dont mind modern apps, I just wish that they wern't dumbed down so much to the point of just being barely usable. IF modern apps were as full featured as x64 apps then I say go for it, specially if using a mouse/keyboard. 

Maybe Windows 11 they can have it like Windows 10, where without a keyboard you get the touch version which is like the dumbed down version of Windows with the god awful Modern UI tiles, and people with Keyboard and mouse get not only full fledged windows, but modern apps that arnt dumbed down as well, so we get the full experience. 

True - however, look at the folks writing the software. By and large, these are mobile developers - where concise and light application software makes a great deal of sense.  When you're used to writing concise, you generally "stick to your last".  I've seen rather elegant Modern applications - and they aren't written in RT, either.  Have you looked at Server Manager (Windows Server 2012 and later)?  In fact, take a good hard look at Word 2013, or Visual Studio 2013 and later - both have largely gotten a Modern-inspired makeover.  In fact, go back to the Windows 8 Developer Preview, and MetroIRC and MetroTwit.  Both are Modern, but neither is RT-driven. Would you call Visual Studio dumbed-down?  Or Word? Or MetroIRC, for that matter?  If you're used to busy and complicated applications,  small and concise, even as an option, takes getting used to.  But does every user NEED big and complicated?  It's still about choice - yours.  You didn't lose big and complex merely due to small and concise being an option - and neither has anyone else.

 

I DO use more ModernUI/RT on my notebook due to two rather sensible reasons - my notebook has a smaller screen (far smaller) than my desktop; also, battery life IS an issue - one I can't ignore.  Those are two rather compelling reason to at least give ModernUI a fair shot compared to a desktop.  How many of you complaining about ModernUI/RT actually have notebooks or laptops?  If you don't have a notebook, I wouldn't expect you would have much use for ModernUI - you have likely never had your application fall down on you because your battery ran down - and you had no place to plug in and recharge. (I've seen it happen - and it's not fun.)  Thanks to ModernUI, I actually have an option where I need it most - on my legacy (remember, it dates back to Vista) notebook - power is a decided issue there.  Big and complex is not a need - all too often, big and complex gets in the way, even on a desktop.  (And it decidedly gets in the way, not to mention being a power crook, on anything portable.  And especially legacy notebooks and laptops.)  My notebook is NOT big and powerful - and with a desktop of my own, it doesn't have to be.

[onewarmslime]

Quote

Which they are not doing. So, good day.

 

You're failing to realize that Windows 10 is going to be more than just a desktop OS, and as such needs to have a universal UI - Metro/Modern.

 

In Tech Preview there's a start menu in case you haven't noticed and the start screen will be disabled by default on desktops/laptops, so your statement isn't even accurate. Even if it was, just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Windows 8 was "more than just a desktop OS", and the 2012 release was horrible. Do we need that to happen again? I've been missing the start menu ever since I made the switch from XP, and IMHO they should reenable it as a free patch rather than make us buy a new OS... again. That's just me though. The lack of a start menu isn't giving the user choice, is taking it away from them.

[PGHammer]

Au contraire.  The UI/UX is Windows 8x took away choice.  Windows 10 is giving the choice back (start menu, start screen and I guess Cortana)...or in other words, Microsoft is now giving you the choice on how you control the operating system.  Surprised that you said the UI/UX in Windows 8x didn't take choice away when it obviously did.  Natively, Windows 8x gave you the start screen and not much else (unless you want to pin everything).  If anything, Windows 8x was extremely biased towards the Modern UI experience.  I could also go on about Metro apps, in Windows 8x, being severely limited (limited choice vs. how desktop programs can run) in the way they utilized screen space (not windowed)...but that is a topic for another day.

 

 

Which you've said...so many times.  

How is Windows 8.1, or 8, for that matter, biased toward ModernUI, when Win32 applications are not only still usable, but are usable in the same way they were in Windows 7?  In other words, its Win32 PLUS Modern - it doesn't have to be either/or.  I've made plain exactly what third-party applications got fired - all of three.  Those three all got mooted by features of the OS itself.  My Win32 applications are unchanged otherwise. My Modern/RT application use is mostly on my notebook - with the smaller screen - and it is precisely BECAUSE I have less screen to work with than my desktop that that is the case.  (That is a constraint that anything portable has to deal with - and that is especially true of notebooks and laptops of the Vista and 7 eras.  Do you even HAVE a notebook or laptop, let alone an older one?  Battery life is a major issue on ANYTHING portable - in fact, it's a bigger issue than touch-screen support on legacy notebooks and laptops.)  And pinning isn't a new feature, even with Windows 8 - it debuted with the much-maligned Windows Vista - with the QuickLaunch Bar, and was expanded with 7 with the SuperBar.; all 8 gave us was more ways to pin.)  Was Vista maligned because of pinning?  No - it was criticized for other reasons - in fact, pinning was an advantage that Vista had over XP - so said the critics OF Vista. So suddenly a feature that 8 kept from Vista and 7 is suddenly a bad thing? Pray tell, why is that the case?)

 

If you had said "WindowsRT", - not Windows 8 or 8.1 - you would actually have a case to argue.  However, you aren't saying that.  Windows 8 and 8.1 - unlike WindowsRT - still lets you run the exact same applications you can in 7 - not similar ones. Other than the Start menu being gone, what went away?  (And even as far as THAT goes, there are all those third-party Start menu bringbacks.  What is the problem with those - as a group OR individually?  I haven't heard a peep out of anyone that swears by them - which means that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.  I don't have a problem with that - despite my not needing them.  You can have them, if you need them.  I don't have a problem with YOU needing them, despite my not needing or caring about them.  For some reason, you do.  That is why I asked what I did - how have they failed?  Why should Microsoft do your dirty work in firing them?)

[PGHammer]

In Tech Preview there's a start menu in case you haven't noticed and the start screen will be disabled by default on desktops/laptops, so your statement isn't even accurate. Even if it was, just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Windows 8 was "more than just a desktop OS", and the 2012 release was horrible. Do we need that to happen again? I've been missing the start menu ever since I made the switch from XP, and IMHO they should reenable it as a free patch rather than make us buy a new OS... again. That's just me though. The lack of a start menu isn't giving the user choice, is taking it away from them.

So you are accusing ALL the third-party bringbacks of failing - how have they failed. other than NOT being from Microsoft?  (I have no opinion - I don't use them. so how have they failed?)  And remember, I have no opinion at all, so it doesn't, and can't hurt my feelings to hear your criticism of them.  You are basically asking Microsoft to do your dirty work - so I want to know how they have failed you.  I'm not the one putting Microsoft on the spot - or even pytting the third-parties on the spot.  YOu, however, are.

[BajiRav]

In Tech Preview there's a start menu in case you haven't noticed and the start screen will be disabled by default on desktops/laptops, so your statement isn't even accurate. Even if it was, just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Windows 8 was "more than just a desktop OS", and the 2012 release was horrible. Do we need that to happen again? I've been missing the start menu ever since I made the switch from XP, and IMHO they should reenable it as a free patch rather than make us buy a new OS... again. That's just me though. The lack of a start menu isn't giving the user choice, is taking it away from them.

Are we talking about the start screen which opens windowed and looks like start menu?

[Eric Veteran]

Are we talking about the start screen which opens windowed and looks like start menu?

 

That would be my guess. The new start menu is actually a modern UI surface redirected to the same application frame host the apps use.

[DConnell Member]

Windows 7 works perfectly well, as long as I can use the same ui as I do in that (8.1 is getting there) and I don't have a bunch of full screen apps or windows I am good.  If they can do the perfect balance with 10.. keep the modern stuff... but I am not a touch user.  There is a big difference between "You can use a mouse and keyboard" and "Designed for a mouse and keyboard".

 

And there's also a difference between "designed for a mouse and keyboard" and "designed ONLY for a mouse and keyboard".

 

Modern, despite what the detractors say, is the former - I use it just fine, and prefer to use it with mouse & keyboard. It just also happens to be designed for touch as well.

 

The desktop UI is the latter. It works almost exclusively with m/k, and what other methods exist are poorly supported at best.

 

The issue isn't about Modern "not working with a mouse" - it works extremely well with one. The issue is user preference, which is perfectly valid objection. But "I don't like it" does not equal "It doesn't work".

 

People made virtually identical arguments against the mouse as we now hear about touch, back when Windows 3.0 came out. And we all know how that worked out - the mouse didn't replace the keyboard, rather they now work together. I'm fully expecting the same to happen with touch - it won't (and is not intended to) replace anything we now have. It'll just be another method added to the mix.

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

I've never been a fan of the 3d bevels on WIndows app form buttons and suck. If I'm doing something with forms in Visual Studio, I almost exclusively make all of the elements Flat. It looks better.

 

That said, some people take "Modern UI" a bit weirdly with oversized buttons and poor element alignment (CCleaner 5 is very guilty of these sins, but Avast 2015 does them very well. Office also does it well). 

[DConnell Member]

Au contraire.  The UI/UX is Windows 8x took away choice.  Windows 10 is giving the choice back (start menu, start screen and I guess Cortana)...or in other words, Microsoft is now giving you the choice on how you control the operating system.  

 

Took away choice? What choice did we have before? All we had was the Start Menu, with a couple different looks to it. But when you get down to it, still the same basic design. No alternatives for anyone - like me - who hates the Menu.

 

But the lack of choice for 17 years didn't bother you because you liked the default. That's fine for you, but that still doesn't mean we actualy had choice. I on the other hand, have only had a UI I liked for 2 years, and am now fighting to retain the Screen as an option. I have no objection to the Menu coming back, so long as I'm not forced to use it.

 

I'm quite happy that the choice is being added in for those that want the Menu, but its a new thing. Don't act like it was taken away in 8, because we never had choice before. Except in 95, where Program Manager was well hidden and poorly supported.

[Dot Matrix]

In Tech Preview there's a start menu in case you haven't noticed and the start screen will be disabled by default on desktops/laptops, so your statement isn't even accurate. Even if it was, just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Windows 8 was "more than just a desktop OS", and the 2012 release was horrible. Do we need that to happen again? I've been missing the start menu ever since I made the switch from XP, and IMHO they should reenable it as a free patch rather than make us buy a new OS... again. That's just me though. The lack of a start menu isn't giving the user choice, is taking it away from them.

Metro is more than just the start screen. Besides, as other's have pointed out, the Windows 10 UX is still Metro/Modern based. Live tiles are still the highlight of the start menu, and Metro apps and services are apparent throughout the OS.

[DConnell Member]

 The lack of a start menu isn't giving the user choice, is taking it away from them.

 

No, it's just changing the default. You can't take away something we never had. Or did I miss the option to use something besides a Start Menu in Win 98 through 7?

 

The choice we're seeing in 10 is completely unprecedented, and quite welcome.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

No, it's just changing the default. You can't take away something we never had. Or did I miss the option to use something besides a Start Menu in Win 98 through 7?

 

The choice we're seeing in 10 is completely unprecedented, and quite welcome.

 

even though i like start menu, i barely even have to open it, as i run everything i need from taskbar or via desktop icons

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Took away choice? What choice did we have before? All we had was the Start Menu, with a couple different looks to it. But when you get down to it, still the same basic design. No alternatives for anyone - like me - who hates the Menu.

 

But the lack of choice for 17 years didn't bother you because you liked the default. That's fine for you, but that still doesn't mean we actualy had choice. I on the other hand, have only had a UI I liked for 2 years, and am now fighting to retain the Screen as an option. I have no objection to the Menu coming back, so long as I'm not forced to use it.

 

I'm quite happy that the choice is being added in for those that want the Menu, but its a new thing. Don't act like it was taken away in 8, because we never had choice before. Except in 95, where Program Manager was well hidden and poorly supported.

 

I didn't claim that prior Windows gave a "choice" either.  I was merely saying that PGHammer's comment "a biased (in any direction) UI/UX takes choice away - a UI/UX in Windows 8.x fashion does not" is incorrect as Windows 8x was clearly biased towards Modern UI.

 

WIndows 10 on the other hand is clearly giving a UI/UX choice.

[DConnell Member]

I didn't say that prior Windows gave a "choice" either.  I was merely saying that PGHammer's comment "a biased (in any direction) UI/UX takes choice away - a UI/UX in Windows 8.x fashion does not" is incorrect as Windows 8x was clearly biased towards Modern UI.

 

WIndows 10 on the other hand is clearly giving a UI/UX choice.

 

We've yet to see whether that's really true. We're getting a choice of program launcher, but that's really just one element in the UI. If I can choose whether Modern apps open full-screen or windowed by default - independent of the device type - then yes, we're getting a choice in UI. Personally, I'd rather the option of running desktop programs in Modern than Modern apps on the desktop, but it looks like that isn't in the cards.

 

Windows 8 did give us a choice of UI. We could run just desktop programs (and with a menu tool & 8.1 not even see Modern) or just Modern with the Screen or a mix of the two. The only thing that wasn't user-selectable by default was the program launcher. UI is more than just the launcher.

 

10 is the opposite at the moment - you can select the launcher, but you have to live on the desktop. In the current preview of 10, its completely desktop UI apart from the option of using the Screen. Personally I'm hoping the Consumer Preview gives us the ability to run Modern UI or desktop UI or both side-by-side, just like 8.x. Otherwise it'll be a massive step back in usability IMO.

 

That's LESS choice than 8.x gave us!

 

All the preview confirms is a choice of launcher design, which is still unprecedented. We don't know if the overall UI can be selected/tweaked.

[PGHammer]

And there's also a difference between "designed for a mouse and keyboard" and "designed ONLY for a mouse and keyboard".

 

Modern, despite what the detractors say, is the former - I use it just fine, and prefer to use it with mouse & keyboard. It just also happens to be designed for touch as well.

 

The desktop UI is the latter. It works almost exclusively with m/k, and what other methods exist are poorly supported at best.

 

The issue isn't about Modern "not working with a mouse" - it works extremely well with one. The issue is user preference, which is perfectly valid objection. But "I don't like it" does not equal "It doesn't work".

 

People made virtually identical arguments against the mouse as we now hear about touch, back when Windows 3.0 came out. And we all know how that worked out - the mouse didn't replace the keyboard, rather they now work together. I'm fully expecting the same to happen with touch - it won't (and is not intended to) replace anything we now have. It'll just be another method added to the mix.

In fact, they CAN work together (touch/mouse/keyboard) - I pointed to exactly that in my mini-review of the H-P TouchSmart 310, and the best proof of that is, surprisingly, Office 2013, which is an MDL-influenced, but Win32, productivity suite.

 

Here's the problem that the extremists have with the TouchSmart 310 - not only does it support touch, but it supports touch, mouse, and keyboard use at the same time.  (However, that shouldn't be exactly news - except for kiosks, most touch-screen hardware, regardless of screen size, is no more touch-exclusive than that.)

 

And the TouchSmart 310 actually predates Windows 8 - it came out when Windows 7 was still in full force; in fact, Windows 8 was not only not in full beta, the Developer Preview hadn't even been announced yet (nor had the SAMSUNG SERIES 7).  In other words, the hardware was out there, but there was no directly-in-the-OS support for it.  (As is the case with ANY hardware that the OS doesn't support directly - the same applies with features - you must go to third parties to add the feature that the hardware demands.  That has been the case with PCs, tablets, slates, etc pre-8 - it's even been the case with smartphones and tablets not only pre-Android 4.x, but post 4.x as well (HTC Sense, MotoBlur, Samsung's TouchWiz, etc.)

 

I'm not arguing that overlays should replace native support; if anything, I'm arguing the opposite (native IS better - I can say that with a straight face because I've replaced one WITH the other on the same hardware).  But I can ALSO argue - with the same straight face - that touch does not get in the way of keyboard+mouse usage on any OS.  Let me repeat myself so that it sinks in - any OS; it's no more an issue in Windows 8 or later than it is in Android - or iOS, for that matter. (Consider the iPod nano, the iPad, and the iPhone - all three can run identical versions of iOS.  So why can't you run the same software on all three?  Believe it or not, in some cases, you actually can (all three can run the same version of iTunes, for example).  The difference - the only difference, in fact - is hardware feature support.  Basically, the iDevices use hardware features to boundarize (stovepipe) what  devices running the same OS are capable of.  Not exactly a bad thing - PC makers do the same thing.

 

Still, there ARE those that are uncomfortable going beyond their comfort zones - this is the crowd that has been buying Apple hardware (both iDevices and computers) for decades.  However, by keeping that market constrained, Apple has restricted (deliberately, and for a very understandable reason - profit maximization) the availability of these locked-down pieces of hardware.  So where have they gone instead?  They went where they could - mostly to Windows.  These same folks are doing their darndest to turn Windows into an OS X clone, and turn the hardware into so many Mac clones.  The issue isn't doubt, or even uncertainty; instead, it's outright fear.

 

As to why I'm pointing to fear (as opposed to uncertainty or doubt), there is actually nothing that prevents Apple from building touch support into MacBooks (or even the Mac Pro) - the support for it IS there in OS X; in fact, it's been there since at least Mavericks.  The OS support is there - it's not that hard HARDWARE-wise to add it (if anything, it's easier to add to MacBooks, or even iMacs, than it is to the Mac Pro), and it's less expensive now than it was when Mavericks shipped.  More variety = more hardware sales = more revenues.  Amount of OS changes required - none.  Yet the very idea scares the Mac faithful to death - why?

 

Windows is not OS X, and you can best believe that I will do my darndest to avoid attempts to convert it INTO OS X.  If you want to use OS X, go ahead - I certainly won't stop you.  However, OS X is artificially constrained - I'm warning you of that up front.  While there are things that you can do in OS X that you can't do in Windows, the reverse is true - and is it ever.

 

If that is what you want, fine - be honest and be done with it.  But if you continue to blow smoke up my butt, I WILL put you in my plonk file - I won't put up with BS.

[Kazama Levi]

And there's also a difference between "designed for a mouse and keyboard" and "designed ONLY for a mouse and keyboard".

 

And there's also "designed ONLY for touch devices", which is true for Metro (at least at its inception). When they came up with Metro, it was only meant to run on touch devices like the Windows Phone.

Then the following ensued at MS:

 

A: "Oh noes, our Windows Phone are doing spectacularly bad. What to do?"

B: "We could try to make Metro better."

A: "Nah, too much work."

C: "As we dominate the desktop, we could force our Windows Phone UI on the desktop with Windows 8. If people are forced to use it there, Windows Phones will sell better."

B: "But won't people complain if we force a Windows Phone UI on the desktop? It was only designed for touch devices, after all, and pretty much none of the desktop users is using touch devices."

A: "Who cares, let them complain. We can simply tack on mouse control on it, doesn't matter if that ends up as a half-assed hack job because it was never intended to be used by a mouse."

C: "Let's get working then. I'm sure Windows Phone popularity will greatly increase!"

 

During Windows 10 talks:

A: "Oh well, that didn't work out at all. Windows Phone popularity didn't improve much even though they all were forced to use the Windows Phone UI on the desktop. What's more, now most people are also hating Windows 8. What to do?"

B: "I told you so. I strongly advise giving the desktop users a desktop UI again, rather than forcing them to use a touch UI with half-assed mouse support."

A: "Okay, we'll better do that."

B: Also, distance ourselves from that forced touch debacle by... uhh... jumping over a number and naming it Windows 10 or something."

A: "Sounds good, we'll do that as well!"

 

That's why Windows 8 ended up with Metro. As their reasining for putting metro on the desktop didn't work out at all, they went back to a more regular desktop UI for Windows 10 again and are using other methods now to make the Windows Phone more popular (like free Office 365, OneCloud etc., which is much more successful and doesn't turn desktop usability into garbage).

[PGHammer]

And there's also "designed ONLY for touch devices", which is true for Metro (at least at its inception). When they came up with Metro, it was only meant to run on touch devices like the Windows Phone.

Then the following ensued at MS:

 

A: "Oh noes, our Windows Phone are doing spectacularly bad. What to do?"

B: "We could try to make Metro better."

A: "Nah, too much work."

C: "As we dominate the desktop, we could force our Windows Phone UI on the desktop with Windows 8. If people are forced to use it there, Windows Phones will sell better."

B: "But won't people complain if we force a Windows Phone UI on the desktop? It was only designed for touch devices, after all, and pretty much none of the desktop users is using touch devices."

A: "Who cares, let them complain. We can simply tack on mouse control on it, doesn't matter if that ends up as a half-assed hack job because it was never intended to be used by a mouse."

C: "Let's get working then. I'm sure Windows Phone popularity will greatly increase!"

 

During Windows 10 talks:

A: "Oh well, that didn't work out at all. Windows Phone popularity didn't improve much even though they all were forced to use the Windows Phone UI on the desktop. What's more, now most people are also hating Windows 8. What to do?"

B: "I told you so. I strongly advise giving the desktop users a desktop UI again, rather than forcing them to use a touch UI with half-assed mouse support."

A: "Okay, we'll better do that."

B: Also, distance ourselves from that forced touch debacle by... uhh... jumping over a number and naming it Windows 10 or something."

A: "Sounds good, we'll do that as well!"

 

That's why Windows 8 ended up with Metro. As their reasining for putting metro on the desktop didn't work out at all, they went back to a more regular desktop UI for Windows 10 again and are using other methods now to make the Windows Phone more popular (like free Office 365, OneCloud etc., which is much more successful and doesn't turn desktop usability into garbage).

The argument (designed only for touch devices) doesn't fly for several reasons:

 

1.  I use Modern (as both UI, and as design language) while having zero touch support at all - and I'm not the only one.

2.  Where I use few Modern applications is on desktop PCs - because I have more screen real estate.  However, my notebook (which has a smaller screen) has fewer issues with Modern apps.  In short, screen size is the biggest factor - that is something there is zero dispute over.  (In short, it's all about screen size.)

3.  Do you have a portable computer of any sort?  (That includes a legacy notebook OR laptop.)  If you don't, then I'm perfectly willing to admit that ModernUI won't exactly benefit you.  (It's not a walkback - that is something I've been extremely consistent on.)

4.  Touch-screens ARE more common on smaller screens - that is more a function of what it costs to add the feature.  However, you are unable to admit (not merely unwilling to admit) that the technology itself predates Windows 8, and not alone on tablets and slates, but even on desktops - have you been living in a cave?

 

The last is a major issue for anyone involved in technical support - hardware OR software.  If you are going to be in that line of work - at any level - keeping up with not merely current technology, but advancements IN technology, is a must.  Sticking your head in the sand is not an option - if you do, you will find yourself Overtaken By Events and rendered obsolete; being obsolete gets you laid off, if not fired altogether.  You can't stick to just what you like - or even what you are used to; tech doesn't work that way.  (I've been pointing out every opportunity - in other words,  continuously - that I have more years in IT alone than most Neowinians have been alive - forty of them.  I go back to mainframes - mainframe terminals, to be precise - and at the age of twelve.  I would move permanently to PCs in 1987, and would buy my first one three years later.  In other words, just my first fourteen years in IT saw the mainframe be replaced by the personal computer - note that Windows is barely present - and Windows 3.0, let alone 3.1, has not made an appearance yet.  The year - on the timeline calendar - is now 1990, and Windows 3.0 is about to arrive.  The ugly duckling is about to become a swan.  The mouse (first bus-driven, and later serial, AKA RS-232) is about to come into it's own - and largely due TO Windows 3.0; remember, MS-DOS - and most MS-DOS applications - had no use for mice, and most users LIKED it that way.  Yet less than two years later, lack of mouse support (in any application) was something to be avoided, and non-color screens were going the way of the passenger pigeon.  Explain that, please.  (I saw it happen with my own eyeballs - and can't.)  Drowning is a VERY bad way to die, so rather than drown, I adjusted.  It has been twenty-four years since that rather seminal (for me) moment - and, if anything, the pace of tech changes - merely in non-enterprise computing alone - has sped up in the last 24 years, even compared to the breakneck pace of the first sixteen!  Change may be hated, or even despised; however, it is far less of a chance of avoiding it - and as I stated earlier, drowning is a VERY bad way of dying.

[Ian S.]

 are using other methods now to make the Windows Phone more popular (like free Office 365, OneCloud etc., which is much more successful and doesn't turn desktop usability into garbage).

When have they gave away O365 w/ phones?

 

OneCloud ...  

[onewarmslime]

Quote

 

So you are accusing ALL the third-party bringbacks of failing - how have they failed. other than NOT being from Microsoft?  (I have no opinion - I don't use them. so how have they failed?)  And remember, I have no opinion at all, so it doesn't, and can't hurt my feelings to hear your criticism of them.  You are basically asking Microsoft to do your dirty work - so I want to know how they have failed you.  I'm not the one putting Microsoft on the spot - or even pytting the third-parties on the spot.  YOu, however, are.

 

No, I'm accusing Microsoft of failing by not including the start menu. You don't seem to understand that this isn't about third-party tools not working, it's about Microsoft making a horrible design decision. If my "dirty work" equals using the computer the same way I've been using it for the past 15+ years then yes, that's what I'm asking Microsoft to do.

 

 

 

QuoteAre we talking about the start screen which opens windowed and looks like start menu?          

Dunno what you mean exactly but if you remove the live tiles in TP it *is* the start menu, for all intents and purposes. In fact I prefer it to Vista/W7's start menu (I just wish there was an easy way to pin control panel). If you want to argue semantics, the start screen is also a start menu that opens full-screen and looks like the start menu except streched to fill the entire screen.

 

 

Quote

No, it's just changing the default. You can't take away something we never had. Or did I miss the option to use something besides a Start Menu in Win 98 through 7?

 

The choice we're seeing in 10 is completely unprecedented, and quite welcome.

 

You could use program manager until XP SP2. Also, taking away something that worked for the past 17 years isn't exactly the same as not including something that had never really been a part of windows since the early 90s

[BajiRav]

And there's also "designed ONLY for touch devices", which is true for Metro (at least at its inception). When they came up with Metro, it was only meant to run on touch devices like the Windows Phone.

Then the following ensued at MS:

 

A: "Oh noes, our Windows Phone are doing spectacularly bad. What to do?"

B: "We could try to make Metro better."

A: "Nah, too much work."

C: "As we dominate the desktop, we could force our Windows Phone UI on the desktop with Windows 8. If people are forced to use it there, Windows Phones will sell better."

B: "But won't people complain if we force a Windows Phone UI on the desktop? It was only designed for touch devices, after all, and pretty much none of the desktop users is using touch devices."

A: "Who cares, let them complain. We can simply tack on mouse control on it, doesn't matter if that ends up as a half-assed hack job because it was never intended to be used by a mouse."

C: "Let's get working then. I'm sure Windows Phone popularity will greatly increase!"

 

During Windows 10 talks:

A: "Oh well, that didn't work out at all. Windows Phone popularity didn't improve much even though they all were forced to use the Windows Phone UI on the desktop. What's more, now most people are also hating Windows 8. What to do?"

B: "I told you so. I strongly advise giving the desktop users a desktop UI again, rather than forcing them to use a touch UI with half-assed mouse support."

A: "Okay, we'll better do that."

B: Also, distance ourselves from that forced touch debacle by... uhh... jumping over a number and naming it Windows 10 or something."

A: "Sounds good, we'll do that as well!"

 

That's why Windows 8 ended up with Metro. As their reasining for putting metro on the desktop didn't work out at all, they went back to a more regular desktop UI for Windows 10 again and are using other methods now to make the Windows Phone more popular (like free Office 365, OneCloud etc., which is much more successful and doesn't turn desktop usability into garbage).

Metro didn't start with Windows phone. You don't have your facts right to troll effectively.

[Dot Matrix]

(I just wish there was an easy way to pin control panel).

The Control Panel is being decommissioned here.

[DConnell Member]

 

You could use program manager until XP SP2. Also, taking away something that worked for the past 17 years isn't exactly the same as not including something that had never really been a part of windows since the early 90s

 

The Start Menu never worked for me. Program Manager did, so I did not appreciate being forced away from it and onto a crippled text list, with the alternative (only really available in Win 95) so effectively hidden that I wasn't aware of it until recently. Believe me, if the option had been clearly available, I would have used it. As it was, I tried every alternate shell on the market. They were all either too unstable on my equipment or just skins on the menu - both worthless to me.

 

You may have been able to use program manager, but it wasn't a normal part of the OS, and wasn't supported at all. Even the ability to use it in 95 was poorly supported. How is that different from using a third party tool?

 

How is changing from PM to Menu different from changing Menu to Screen, apart from the fact that the Menu was kept for about 16 years too long? Why MS chose to cripple Windows with that execrable excuse for a program launcher for nearly 2 decades I'll never understand.

 

I still maintain that Microsoft gave us no more choice prior to Windows 8 than after. The fact that you liked the default launcher back then (unlike me) doesn't make it more choice. It just means you liked how it was set up out of the box. Conversely, the fact that you don't like the defaults doesn't mean less choice. No MS-provided options, I'll grant you, but I still say that apart from the hidden option in 95, we never had any choice.

[Stoffel]

The Start Menu never worked for me. Program Manager did, so I did not appreciate being forced away from it and onto a crippled text list, with the alternative (only really available in Win 95) so effectively hidden that I wasn't aware of it until recently. Believe me, if the option had been clearly available, I would have used it. As it was, I tried every alternate shell on the market. They were all either too unstable on my equipment or just skins on the menu - both worthless to me.

 

You may have been able to use program manager, but it wasn't a normal part of the OS, and wasn't supported at all. Even the ability to use it in 95 was poorly supported. How is that different from using a third party tool?

 

How is changing from PM to Menu different from changing Menu to Screen, apart from the fact that the Menu was kept for about 16 years too long? Why MS chose to cripple Windows with that execrable excuse for a program launcher for nearly 2 decades I'll never understand.

 

I still maintain that Microsoft gave us no more choice prior to Windows 8 than after. The fact that you liked the default launcher back then (unlike me) doesn't make it more choice. It just means you liked how it was set up out of the box. Conversely, the fact that you don't like the defaults doesn't mean less choice. No MS-provided options, I'll grant you, but I still say that apart from the hidden option in 95, we never had any choice.

 

I think most people complaining here are people who never used a computer before Windows 95, and just assume that's the way Windows has always been and always should be. It's still funny to me to see so many people in IT, a field that should be interested in change/progress/..., complain so much about such small changes in work flow.