Windows 7 or 8

[XOR != OR]

I already explained my position...you just seem to have difficulty with reading my posts, which is why there is so much conversational boilerplate instead of natural discussion. As I mentioned before, because the interface is such an important facet, it is not only good, but desirable to continue making strides towards better interaction. If you're not improving the most important part of the OS, then how much are you really improving the OS?

Indeed. Likewise, if you can't criticize changes to what you call "the most important part of the OS", then how do you know they're better?

 

[Ur_Mom]

The market is changing. Desktops are an aging, yet still very popular and still very relevant, platform. But, for casual use, the tablet, phone, and touchscreen devices are up and coming. Desktops are not dying, but the touchscreen devices are increasing in numbers very fast. Microsoft cannot ignore either segment. Having a unified UI across multiple platforms is great. You can pick up your phone and use it the same way you can with your desktop or your tablet.

That's where the dilemma is. Do you redefine your whole UI for touch? Or do you update your current UI to allow touch? Windows is due for a change, it's just pleasing both crowds that is the hard part. I don't do UI design (I could show you some of my apps, they are very functional, but not pretty), so I don't know where the middle ground it, or if a compromise even exists. A unified UI....

edit: also, Windows 8 is taking some new hardware in mind. The Leap controller, touch screens, new touch gesture mice, etc.. Using the old mouse/keyboard, while it's my preferred way of using the desktop, is going to require some new toys to perform at it's best. We can't hit Star Trek type stuff with a mouse/keyboard. They may still be used, but there will be other stuff, as well.

The reason why Windows 8 is so controversial I think is because none of these approaches is definitively correct, not at this time. Approach #1 creates a lot of disruption is the use of a very familiar UI. Approach #2 makes it easier to just avoid the new UI thus creating less of a reason for OEMs and software developers to work with the Modern UI. Approach #3, "well Apple didn't do it" is fine if you have less that 10% of the current desktop market. Given Windows' dominance in desktops, Microsoft has many reasons that make sense for it and even consumers. The ability to preserve that investment and move it forward to new form factors does have use for customers, especially on the business side. Small incremental changes to the desktop are not going to reinvigorate the desktop market at this point I believe.

So pick your poison. The bottom line is that the desktop is old, the market is saturated, desktops have a very long lifespan compared to mobile devices and for what desktops do today, most people are simply happy with what they have. It's just a touch situation for a leader in a market that's becoming less relevant to be in with no easy answers. Perhaps is Microsoft had a stronger foothold in mobile it could allow the desktop market to slip and just keep the desktop a desktop. But even then you're talking about a huge investment in Windows desktop to simply let slip into irrelevancy, particularly on the consumer side.

 

[Dogs]

Indeed. Likewise, if you can't criticize changes to what you call "the most important part of the OS", then how do you know they're better?

You'll notice I never said that you can't criticize the changes themselves. You simply can't criticize them solely because they're changes. These types of changes need to be evaluated on the basis of the value they add, and not on the basis that they're different.

I think we have clearly established that the new interface in Windows 8 is better in regards to more general input methods. So, unless the UI is also deficient somewhere else to compensate for this improvement, the new UI must be an overall improvement. This is why I asked earlier in the thread for the user to demonstrate what is problematic and what is lost by the new UI, and this is why I said 'being different' is not a 'problem'.

However, I do not support forcing changes on users.

Forced change is sometimes the only way to get users to adopt new changes. If it weren't for forced changes, you wouldn't be using the start menu, because like the Modern UI, the start menu too was a forced change which pushed users to adapt from the older, pre-Windows 95 interface. If Windows 95 shipped with an easy switch to revert to the old program manger UI, users would have stuck with the path of least resistance and stayed on program manager.

That's where the dilemma is. Do you redefine your whole UI for touch? Or do you update your current UI to allow touch? Windows is due for a change, it's just pleasing both crowds that is the hard part. I don't do UI design (I could show you some of my apps, they are very functional, but not pretty), so I don't know where the middle ground it, or if a compromise even exists. A unified UI....

I think this is a relatively new problem in computing, as well. Touch interaction as seen a very sudden and rapid explosion, and there is little precedence about what the best approaches are. I think this is an area where Steven Sinofsky really demonstrated his ability to be an innovative, creative, lateral-and-forward thinker. I feel the 'Building Windows 8' blog provides a very insightful and interesting Window into the making of Windows 8, some of the changes faced, and some of the brilliant problem solving that went into getting around said challenges.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/

 

[heatlesssun]

The market is changing. Desktops are an aging, yet still very popular and still very relevant, platform. But, for casual use, the tablet, phone, and touchscreen devices are up and coming. Desktops are not dying, but the touchscreen devices are increasing in numbers very fast. Microsoft cannot ignore either segment. Having a unified UI across multiple platforms is great. You can pick up your phone and use it the same way you can with your desktop or your tablet.

That's where the dilemma is. Do you redefine your whole UI for touch? Or do you update your current UI to allow touch? Windows is due for a change, it's just pleasing both crowds that is the hard part. I don't do UI design (I could show you some of my apps, they are very functional, but not pretty), so I don't know where the middle ground it, or if a compromise even exists. A unified UI....

edit: also, Windows 8 is taking some new hardware in mind. The Leap controller, touch screens, new touch gesture mice, etc.. Using the old mouse/keyboard, while it's my preferred way of using the desktop, is going to require some new toys to perform at it's best. We can't hit Star Trek type stuff with a mouse/keyboard. They may still be used, but there will be other stuff, as well.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying but while a lot has obviously changed in the UI shell, a lot hasn't. In time I would suspect there will be more changes to even the class UI as I don't think the desktop is going away anytime soon and there are still other desktop OSes for Windows to compete against.

 

[XOR != OR]

You'll notice I never said that you can't criticize the changes themselves. You simply can't criticize them solely because they're changes. These types of changes need to be evaluated on the basis of the value they add, and not on the basis that they're different.

I think Ur_Mom effectively pointed out that you CAN criticize the UI simpy because it's different; I encourage you to reread his post and try understanding his points.

I think we have clearly established that the new interface in Windows 8 is better in regards to more general input methods. So, unless the UI is also deficient somewhere else to compensate for this improvement, the new UI must be an overall improvement. This is why I asked earlier in the thread for the user to demonstrate what is problematic and what is lost by the new UI, and this is why I said 'being different' is not a 'problem'.

We obviously haven't established *anything* here, and won't until you provide data to backup your position.

You want to prove your point ( that the Win8 UI is an overall improvement ), provide data to support it.

 

[Dogs]

I think Ur_Mom effectively pointed out that you CAN criticize the UI simpy because it's different;

Not really. He mostly just mentioned that using a Mac requires adjustment for him.

We obviously haven't established *anything* here, and won't until you provide data to backup your position.

...Meanwhile, you again refuse to read. Please read the thread/posts before responding.

You want to prove your point ( that the Win8 UI is an overall improvement ), provide data to support it.

No data is necessary, because my approach is far more axiomatic than that. It does everything the Windows 7 UI does, and more. Therefore it's better.

If I said something like "Users can open documents in Windows 8 faster on average than in Windows 7", I would need to provide supporting data, because that's just good empiricism. But since all I'm claiming is that Windows 8's interface merely supersedes Windows 7's interface, which isn't really an empirically measurable metric, trying to provide data would be silly.

 

[heatlesssun]

We obviously haven't established *anything* here, and won't until you provide data to backup your position.

I don't know how you would prove that without some kind of survey that had users using Windows 8 across a number of different devices and input methods. However it is reasonable to say that Windows 8 does work better across the board when considering keyboards, mice, touch and pens, if for no other reason than the same desktop applications work exactly the same with keyboards and mice as always and now there's a new generation of apps that work with touch well that didn't exist a year ago.

 

[heatlesssun]

No data is necessary, because my approach is far more axiomatic than that. It does everything the Windows 7 UI does, and more. Therefore it's better.

Exactly. From the perspective of using applications, 8 does all that 7 does on the desktop and now has applications and support for touch that didn't exist in 7, therefore 8 supersedes 7 from the stand of application support across input methods.

 

[XOR != OR]

No data is necessary, because my approach is far more axiomatic than that. It does everything the Windows 7 UI does, and more. Therefore it's better.

If I said something like "Users can open documents in Windows 8 faster on average than in Windows 7", I would need to provide supporting data, because that's just good empiricism. But since all I'm claiming is that Windows 8's interface merely supersedes Windows 7's interface, which isn't really an empirically measurable metric, trying to provide data would be silly.

So because you can't support your position with objective metrics, I am forced to accept your position as subjective.

Being a subjective position, you should appreciate that "because it's different" is perfectly valid criticism. It appears both you and heatlesssun find the new interface to be better than windows7, but that doesn't mean alternative perspectives are wrong.

 

[heatlesssun]

So because you can't support your position with objective metrics, I am forced to accept your position as subjective.

His point is perfectly valid without specific data. Windows 8 supports the same keyboard and mouse applications as 7 and on top of that 8 supports touch capable apps that 7 doesn't. From the standpoint of application support and input methods 8 supersedes 7. That's just a fact.

 

[Dogs]

So because you can't support your position with objective metrics, I am forced to accept your position as subjective.

I think you just have no understanding of when empirical data is and isn't necessary.

 

[XOR != OR]

His point is perfectly valid without specific data. Windows 8 supports the same keyboard and mouse applications as 7 and on top of that 8 supports touch capable apps that 7 doesn't. From the standpoint of application support and input methods 8 supersedes 7. That's just a fact.

You may already be aware of this, but how interaction is captured is not the totality of the interface. His point, and yours, are focusing merely on added interaction capabilities.

Now, at this point I do have to confess a certain amount of subterfuge; the GUI, it's interactions with the users and how they like it is, ultimately, subjective. Neither one of you could ever support your position that it's objectively "better" because it's a subjective argument. My purpose was to highlight that, but I can see neither one of you can accept such a position ( for whatever reason ).

 

[Dogs]

You may already be aware of this, but how interaction is captured is not the totality of the interface. His point, and yours, are focusing merely on added interaction capabilities.

Now, at this point I do have to confess a certain amount of subterfuge; the GUI, it's interactions with the users and how they like it is, ultimately, subjective. Neither one of you could ever support your position that it's objectively "better" because it's a subjective argument. My purpose was to highlight that, but I can see neither one of you can accept such a position ( for whatever reason ).

But since the desktop-relevant aspects of the two UIs are the same, we don't need to worry about that.

 

[XOR != OR]

But since the desktop-relevant aspects of the two UIs are the same, we don't need to worry about that.

Ah, I see you are confused. I was, and am, still referring to the start menu itself.

 

[Dogs]

Ah, I see you are confused. I was, and am, still referring to the start menu itself.

What is different about them, as far as a desktop user is concerned?

 

[XOR != OR]

What is different about them?

What, between windows 7 and windows 8?

Just to establish a baseline; you have used windows 8, right?

 

[Dogs]

What, between windows 7 and windows 8?

Between their 'start menus' (or start screen, as some people refer to 8's). Because behaviorally, the start menus are approximately identical. The differences are primarily aesthetic.

Just to establish a baseline; you have used windows 8, right?

Of course. Have you? You seem to be mislead into believing that there's something drastically different about the way it functions compared to Windows 7.

 

[XOR != OR]

Between their 'start menus' (or start screen, as some people refer to 8's). Because behaviorally, the start menus are approximately identical. The differences are primarily aesthetic.

Ah, progress! Do you dismiss the aesthetic as unimportant? If so, why? Further, do you agree that aesthetics are subjective? If no, how do you define aesthetics that would make it objective?

 

[heatlesssun]

Neither one of you could ever support your position that it's objectively "better" because it's a subjective argument. My purpose was to highlight that, but I can see neither one of you can accept such a position ( for whatever reason ).

I don't believe either one was arguing the abstract and subjective concept of "better". Speaking only for myself however, I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of applications and the input methods available to the those applications, 8 supersedes 7. One may not like or use the Modern apps or touch, but it's there. Like once an application is launched on the desktop, there is virtually no difference between how that application works between 7 and 8. These are just simple and demonstrable facts.

 

[XOR != OR]

I don't believe either one was arguing the abstract and subjective concept of "better". Speaking only for myself however, I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of applications and the input methods available to the those applications, 8 supersedes 7. One may not like or use the Modern apps or touch, but it's there. Like once an application is launched on the desktop, there is virtually no difference between how that application works between 7 and 8. These are just simple and demonstrable facts.

Which is irrelevant to the underlying point that Dogs is trying to make.

To refresh, he's trying to support the position that "Please note that "it's different" does not constitute a problem.".

 

[heatlesssun]

To refresh, he's trying to support the position that "Please note that "it's different" does not constitute a problem.".

Being different in and of itself doesn't necessarily constitute a problem, at least not one beyond training or getting used to something.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Not really. He mostly just mentioned that using a Mac requires adjustment for him.

As one example. You want more? Out of the box, with no modifications or adjustments - Install MS Office, MS Visual Studio, Steam and several other applications. Now, using your mouse only, open the Steam application. With Windows 7, they are in the Start menu, alphabetical order, even highlighted for you to see the newly installed program. With Windows 8, you're scrolling, looking for that one Steam icon in a sea of not very sorted tiles. That's a problem. Yes, it's fixed by making a few adjustments and organizing. But, does Tom Smith really take the time to do that? He uses email, IE (yes, he can't even download a new browser), and MS Word. He won't make those adjustments.

That is a problem. Nothing fundamentally wrong with the OS itself. It can and does work great. But, when the users have issues actually 'using' the product, it's a problem.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Being different in and of itself doesn't necessarily constitute a problem, at least not one beyond training or getting used to something.

There may not be a problem with the OS itself. It works as it is intended. But, with the usage of it, there are problems.

Can you drive a manual transmission? No? Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the vehicle itself. It works exactly as designed. But, if you cannot drive it, there is a problem. Training or getting used to it should be absolutely minimal. For some, there is the problem. They cannot just pick it up and use it, and they need to.

My users can pick up and use a Lenovo Helix tablet just fine. With that touch, they seem to have a better response to it and know how things are supposed to work. There are those touch enhanced things that work much better with touch. Put the same person in front of a desktop, and it's more difficult for them. Charms? Can't swipe on a desktop. It takes longer, and more frustration, to get them trained on a desktop. Give them that Start menu replacement, and they get a smile and can work just fine with no training.

Desktop PC vs. Touch/Tablet PC. That's where I see a lot of problems. One is easy as pie, the other seems to get a lot more frustration.

 

[heatlesssun]

As one example. You want more? Out of the box, with no modifications or adjustments - Install MS Office, MS Visual Studio, Steam and several other applications. Now, using your mouse only, open the Steam application. With Windows 7, they are in the Start menu, alphabetical order, even highlighted for you to see the newly installed program. With Windows 8, you're scrolling, looking for that one Steam icon in a sea of not very sorted tiles. That's a problem. Yes, it's fixed by making a few adjustments and organizing. But, does Tom Smith really take the time to do that? He uses email, IE (yes, he can't even download a new browser), and MS Word. He won't make those adjustments.

That is a problem. Nothing fundamentally wrong with the OS itself. It can and does work great. But, when the users have issues actually 'using' the product, it's a problem.

Management of the Start Screen and App Screen were areas that I've mentioned many times needed improving in 8 and 8.1 does address this area well. Tiles are no longer automatically dumped on the Start Screen and there are now four different views in the Apps Screen, one that will sort apps by installation date.

But even in 8 with semantic zoom one can easily view top level program folders sorted alphabetically, the "Steam" folder would show up as a tile.

There may not be a problem with the OS itself. It works as it is intended. But, with the usage of it, there are problems.

Can you drive a manual transmission? No? Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the vehicle itself. It works exactly as designed. But, if you cannot drive it, there is a problem. Training or getting used to it should be absolutely minimal. For some, there is the problem. They cannot just pick it up and use it, and they need to.

My users can pick up and use a Lenovo Helix tablet just fine. With that touch, they seem to have a better response to it and know how things are supposed to work. There are those touch enhanced things that work much better with touch. Put the same person in front of a desktop, and it's more difficult for them. Charms? Can't swipe on a desktop. It takes longer, and more frustration, to get them trained on a desktop. Give them that Start menu replacement, and they get a smile and can work just fine with no training.

Desktop PC vs. Touch/Tablet PC. That's where I see a lot of problems. One is easy as pie, the other seems to get a lot more frustration.

So the problem is that after two decades some people are just used to something and won't or can't adapt. Fair enough, but at some point everything reaches the limits of what it was designed to do and new things come along that force change. A 20 year old desktop UI can't continue to drive forward growth in desktops.

 

[nekrosoft13]

Being different in and of itself doesn't necessarily constitute a problem, at least not one beyond training or getting used to something.

true, but i will use the same example that "Ur_Mom" used. manual vs automatic transmission.

Manual transmission can be more fun, can get you better gas millage and if you know how to use it correctly can last you longer. Now try to convince the general public that with little training and getting used to it they all should switch to manual transmissions.

Now back to windows 8, the point is that with windows 8 MS tried:

1) to fix something that wasn't broken, windows 7 was and still is what people preffer

2) they try forcing their inferior mobile/tablet GUI to desktop, in hopes that that they mind few people that might like it and buy their phones to raise their market share from 5%-7%.

windows 8 works ok on devices like tablets, AIO systems and touchscreen laptops (if user wants to use touch screen).

Either at work or at home I sit around 5-6 feet away from the monitor....why would I want a touchscreen? Why would I want forced tablet GUI to interact with my PC?

 

[nekrosoft13]

So the problem is that after two decades some people are just used to something and won't or can't adapt. Fair enough, but at some point everything reaches the limits of what it was designed to do and new things come along that force change. A 20 year old desktop UI can't continue to drive forward growth in desktops.

and in your option a tablet UI can make improve desktops sales?

Why not just rename it from Windows to Window 8.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Management of the Start Screen and App Screen were areas that I've mentioned many times needed improving in 8 and 8.1 does address this area well. Tiles are no longer automatically dumped on the Start Screen and there are now four different views in the Apps Screen, one that will sort apps by installation date.

Agreed. 8.1 does do this better.

So the problem is that after two decades some people are just used to something and won't or can't adapt. Fair enough, but at some point everything reaches the limits of what it was designed to do and new things come along that force change. A 20 year old desktop UI can't continue to drive forward growth in desktops.

Very true. I just think the implementation wasn't as smooth as it could have/should have been. Personally, I have no clue what the best option would have been. I'd say a choice for desktop and touch devices (classic on desktop, Metro on touch), but that may not have worked either. I didn't put out a ton of cash for usage studies or anything. For all I know, the Metro approach they went with WAS the best option, and they are living with the split market (some people like it, others hate it) from that decision. Technology is moving, and while the desktop isn't going anywhere, other devices are. Windows is a 28 year old OS (1985?), and the Start Menu is from 1995 - 18 years. Yes, it probably has outlived it's usefulness on many devices and it's time to move on. I just have to say I expected it to go a bit smoother than it has.

 

[heatlesssun]

1) to fix something that wasn't broken, windows 7 was and still is what people preffer

Something doesn't have to be broken to age out and become less relevant as new things come along. Many people preferred DOS over Windows and other GUIs. In time though that attitude changed and the technology evolved. I don't know if that will happen to the degree it does with Windows 8 and its successors, but over time people want more and more from technology. Over the next few years as Windows 8 and its successors evolve, the hardware gets better and more Modern apps are developed I fewer and fewer people will long for days on an OS that works well with keyboards and mice.

2) they try forcing their inferior mobile/tablet GUI to desktop, in hopes that that they mind few people that might like it and buy their phones to raise their market share from 5%-7%.

What's interesting about this statement is that looking at the latest market share numbers, Windows 8 in less than a year has captured more market share in tablets that Windows Phone has in almost three. The Modern UI was added to Windows 8 to help Windows work on other devices, a market that is growing unlike desktops and laptops currently.
windows 8 works ok on devices like tablets, AIO systems and touchscreen laptops (if user wants to use touch screen).

Either at work or at home I sit around 5-6 feet away from the monitor....why would I want a touchscreen? Why would I want forced tablet GUI to interact with my PC?

I run Windows 8 on two 1920x1200 non-touch monitors just fine. But if I want, I can pick up a touch device and use it there with or without a keyboard depending on what I'm doing.

and in your option a tablet UI can make improve desktops sales?

I don't think much can be done to grow desktop growth at this time. It's just an old saturated market. As certain technologies come on line like 4k monitors and affordable CPUs and GPUs to drive programs at these kinds of resolutions then we'll see some rebound probably, but the days of high growth for the desktop are probably done for good.

Why not just rename it from Windows to Window 8.

Guess I better close down the 6 other windows I have running on my dual screen 8 desktop then.

 

[heatlesssun]

Very true. I just think the implementation wasn't as smooth as it could have/should have been. Personally, I have no clue what the best option would have been. I'd say a choice for desktop and touch devices (classic on desktop, Metro on touch), but that may not have worked either. I didn't put out a ton of cash for usage studies or anything. For all I know, the Metro approach they went with WAS the best option, and they are living with the split market (some people like it, others hate it) from that decision. Technology is moving, and while the desktop isn't going anywhere, other devices are. Windows is a 28 year old OS (1985?), and the Start Menu is from 1995 - 18 years. Yes, it probably has outlived it's usefulness on many devices and it's time to move on. I just have to say I expected it to go a bit smoother than it has.

Agreed. This is going about as well as I expected, I didn't expect Windows RT to do well, I personally shunned it in favor of an equally priced and much more capable Clover Trail Windows 8 machine. If this Windows fanboy didn't see the value in Windows RT, then few were going to I figured.

Windows 8 was going to never have the adoption rate of 7 because of 7. Historically a prior version of Windows has always been stiff competition for the new version, and 7 was a very strong release. Certainly enterprises that have been working for years on 7 migrations were NEVER going to 8 no matter what. Lastly, the hardware wasn't there, in terms of quality or price for tablets, hybrids and convertibles.

As much of a fanboy as I get called I think quite accurately described how this was going to go for the first 3 quarters to a year. Going forward Windows RT will continue to have a rough time, but I think Windows 8.1 on tablets is going to start doing pretty well, ASSUMING the hardware is there. Without the hardware at the right price levels, 8.1 will probably do even worse than 8.

 

[DPI]

So the problem is that after two decades some people are just used to something and won't or can't adapt.

Or just haven't been shown or given a good reason to. There has been no evolution of the UI for desktop computing in Windows, nothing that makes it work better or more efficiently or with less steps than before, no natural or logical evolution or extension that makes life easier for desktop users.

Instead people were given a half-baked overreaction to Apple and Google selling a lot of tablets, and a mandate to "just deal with it" and "just accept change" and "we know its broken we'll fix it later bear with us just accept working in a construction zone indefinitely".

History has shown "different" does not automatically equate to better. Better in UI terms has to feel like its natural, not a roadblock.

 

[heatlesssun]

Or just haven't been shown or given a good reason to. There has been no evolution of the UI for desktop computing in Windows, nothing that makes it work better than before. Only a half-baked overreaction to Apple and Google selling a lot of tablets.

Different is not better. Better has to feel natural rather than a roadblock.

So what capabilities should a PC have and what kind of hardware should it support? Historically Windoows PCs have pretty much supported everything under the sun, that's probably the main reason they become popular. I see no logical reason for a PC not to work with touch or on tablets, it's just another form factor that PCs have supported long before Apple and Google deployed their OSes and products.

Microsoft simply didn't do enough to Windows when it started promoting Tablet PCs over a decade ago, really the only deep functionality they added was digital ink. Of course a decade ago touch wasn't even mainstream. Touch did get support in Vista and even more support in 7, but Microsoft didn't have a modern multi-touch OS, they obviously dropped the ball about 7 years ago in not revamping the Windows CE UI and further developing touch UIs. The essence of Windows 8 needed to have been done about 7 years ago. The concept of 8 makes since from the standpoint that a PC should be able to do anything in the mainstream of computing. Of course the execution could be better and should have been done sooner.

 

[Dogs]

Ah, progress! Do you dismiss the aesthetic as unimportant? If so, why?

Relatively unimportant, yes. After all, we have already established that the most important aspect of an OS is interaction, and believe it or don't, aesthetics do not come in to play. How the UI looks has little to nothing to do with the mechanics of using that UI.

So, since we're concerned with interaction, which is a functionality aspect, aesthetics aren't really important in this part of the discussion.

Further, do you agree that aesthetics are subjective?

Of course...Which is why none of my points revolve around objective comparisons of aesthetics. Are we done with your actual-discussion avoidance program, or should we just agree that I am right about the UIs?

How are the two UIs (Windows 7 and Windows 8) mechanically different from each other in such a way that functionality has been lost for desktop users? I want an example that demonstrates that the Windows 8 UI does not supersede the Windows 7 UI in terms of interaction, which we agree is one of the most important aspects of the OS.

To refresh, he's trying to support the position that "Please note that "it's different" does not constitute a problem.".

Actually, had you read the thread, you'd be aware that the point I'm trying to make is that Windows 8's UI adds functionality without compromise; I was seeking real, describable losses of functionality in Windows 8. But, as usual, you didn't. It's actually getting very tiresome having to point out things which were already mentioned in the thread.

So contrary to what you said, heatlesssun's point is actually extremely relevant to the point that I'm trying to make. Seriously, I can't understand why you sit here and waste your time spouting things that simply do not add value to the discussion. All it takes is a little bit of time to read the discussion you keep interjecting into, and you posts would begin to make sense. I think the next time you post a conclusion you could never possibly have come to after reading the thread, I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Your tendency to not read the thread is really subtracting from the discussion here.

Manual transmission can be more fun, can get you better gas millage and if you know how to use it correctly can last you longer. Now try to convince the general public that with little training and getting used to it they all should switch to manual transmissions.

Easy...You teach driver's training on manual transmissions instead of automatics, and the the majority of people will have no difficulty or opposition to driving a manual transmission.

I'm presume you're from North America, because your analogy actually doesn't make much sense outside of that region. For example, this article points out that over 75% of automobiles in Europe have a manual transmission.
http://www.ricethresher.org/the-clu...h-manual-transmissions-1.2970879#.UgT22Kyfnlc

Can you drive a manual transmission? No? Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the vehicle itself. It works exactly as designed. But, if you cannot drive it, there is a problem. Training or getting used to it should be absolutely minimal.

There is no problem. Most people who purchase a car with a manual transmission without ever having driven one before can learn to drive it comfortably in about a week. Additionally, that doesn't really support anything other than that people are too lazy/fearful to adapt to something better.

 

[XOR != OR]

Relatively unimportant, yes. After all, we have already established that the most important aspect of an OS is interaction, and believe it or don't, aesthetics do not come in to play. How the UI looks has little to nothing to do with the mechanics of using that UI.

So, since we're concerned with interaction, which is a functionality aspect, aesthetics aren't really important in this part of the discussion.



Of course...Which is why none of my points revolve around objective comparisons of aesthetics. Are we done with your actual-discussion avoidance program, or should we just agree that I am right about the UIs?

How are the two UIs (Windows 7 and Windows 8) mechanically different from each other in such a way that functionality has been lost for desktop users? I want an example that demonstrates that the Windows 8 UI does not supersede the Windows 7 UI in terms of interaction, which we agree is one of the most important aspects of the OS.



Actually, had you read the thread, you'd be aware that the point I'm trying to make is that Windows 8's UI adds functionality without compromise; I was seeking real, describable losses of functionality in Windows 8. But, as usual, you didn't. It's actually getting very tiresome having to point out things which were already mentioned in the thread.

So contrary to what you said, heatlesssun's point is actually extremely relevant to the point that I'm trying to make. Seriously, I can't understand why you sit here and waste your time spouting things that simply do not add value to the discussion. All it takes is a little bit of time to read the discussion you keep interjecting into, and you posts would begin to make sense. I think the next time you post a conclusion you could never possibly have come to after reading the thread, I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Your tendency to not read the thread is really subtracting from the discussion here.



Easy...You teach driver's training on manual transmissions instead of automatics, and the the majority of people will have no difficulty or opposition to driving a manual transmission.

I'm presume you're from North America, because your analogy actually doesn't make much sense outside of that region. For example, this article points out that over 75% of automobiles in Europe have a manual transmission.
http://www.ricethresher.org/the-clu...h-manual-transmissions-1.2970879#.UgT22Kyfnlc



There is no problem. Most people who purchase a car with a manual transmission without ever having driven one before can learn to drive it comfortably in about a week. Additionally, that doesn't really support anything other than that people are too lazy/fearful to adapt to something better.

Well, I think that just about answers my questions. I'll just quote it for prosperity, shall I ( and bookmark it, of course )?

Hopefully you'll indulge me with one more question, although of course you don't have to. To clarify your point; It doesn't matter how it looks, only how it functions. Is that essentially correct?

 

[B00nie]

Lol manual transmissions..

When I was 8 years old I did my first drifting with a Datsun bluebird... manual transmission, rear wheel drive and snow on the road. Even a child can drive manual.

 

[Dogs]

To clarify your point; It doesn't matter how it looks, only how it functions. Is that essentially correct?

In terms of interaction only, yes. In other areas, no.

 

[XOR != OR]

In terms of interaction only, yes. In other areas, no.

haha, that's great. Thanks.

 

[wonderfield]

Here's a fun exercise: interact with the interface with your eyes closed. Can you do it?

 

[maw]

If the Metro interface was so superior, then why aren't Windows 8 tablets flying off the shelves?

 

[heatlesssun]

If the Metro interface was so superior, then why aren't Windows 8 tablets flying off the shelves?

Right now Windows 8/RT tablets are at 5% or so of the tablet market. Obviously there are a number of issues facing Windows tablets, price being the big one, need for next gen hardware, getting 8.1 out the door.

At any rate the fate of Windows 8 tablets starts in earnest Q4 this year. Windows RT already seems to have failed by most accounts but that's not surprising nor a huge problem at this point if next gen Atoms deliver the performance they are saying.

 

[Dogs]

But, does Tom Smith really take the time to do that?

If he's too busy remembering to breathe, then no. Otherwise, I don't see that as too much to ask for. It's not like the new interface requires him to blink the UTF-8 binary encoding of the characters he wishes to type, or position the mouse by using a cantilevered control attached to his chin. He has to go from opening the start menu and navigating through a tree organized by file path to opening a page with his applications on them. A significant question, though, is why would Tom Smith install Visual Studio, or why doesn't Tom Smith ever use his keyboard? Certainly you can make anything problematic if you impose enough restrictions.