Tonight I came across the open source project http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/ and it rocks.  Maybe I can actually use windows 8 now. 

Although, why install Windows 8 at all?

I probably will go to Win8 on my desktop machine and if I find I really can't live with the Win8 start menu (or my wife or children find they can't) then this looks like a good option.

Herbie

Now I have my Win8 start menu organised (and I have gotten used to finding things by beginning to type the name) I quite like it!

</Please don't shoot me>

Herbie

Eventually Microsoft will put that start button back in.   Just because they did not put it in even as an option shows some arrogance I dont understand.   These guys on top get egos and think they can control outcomes to their liking.   It wont work.   The good news is new markets get created to fill the need.  Its not just Microsoft and some of its Execs but happens at Apple and Oracle etc.

Using Windows 8 on a "Desktop" PC is...

• Wonderful! (48% with 96 votes)
• Okay (35% with 70 votes)
• Challenging (10% with 21 votes)
• Terrible! (7% with 15 votes)

You can argue about the audience here skewing the results, but most of the places I frequent where people rant and rave about the Windows 8 changes are frequented by the same developer types. So these results shocked me. 83% of the 202 votes were favorable here.

http://windowsdevelopershow.com/wiw/

Does it fixed the crippled taskbar? That is the only concern I have and it is quite low level to fix.

5 hours ago, rhm wrote

Nice.

Although, why install Windows 8 at all?

Good question and to be honest I have really started looking at Linux full time with maybe just a windows vm running with in it.  My co-workers all use mac book pro with windows 7 vm's and are extremely happy.  I guess I can only thing of three reasons to go to windows 8.

1. 64 bit support for virtual machines.  (although I do sorely miss the vm integration features windows 7 offers).
2. Play around with creating FKMA's (formerly known as metro apps) in visual studio 2012
3. Curiosity.

I bought a second ssd to install windows 8, so my windows 7 system is only  a reboot away.

I also have another windows 8 tip.   How to disable the lock screen:

1. Run gpedit.msc
2. Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Control Panel -> Personalization
3. Set "Do not display the lock screen" to enable.

Herbie

EDIT:  Nevermind, you mean the lock screen not the login screen ... sorry 

Learning the new way to do things does have a learning curve but once you get used to it, it is actually pretty nice, even on a desktop.  I like the fact that my screen feels more alive because I am getting the information I am looking for all in one place.  I don't have to keep opening up seperate apps just to keep up on my email, messages, friends, news, etc.  I just glance at the screen and see it all right there.  It is the same reason I like WP7.  I like that my computer is now very responsive and fast.  It doesn't feel as laggy as it did running Windows 7. 

I think it is a good upgrade (especially considering the price) if people would be willing to give it a fair try.  Too many people don't like things because they are different and don't like change.  They also read on blogs that they shouldn't like it so their opinions get tainted.  I honestly commend Microsoft for having the balls to be bold and make huge changes to try and stay competetive.  It may or may not work, but at least they tried.

1 hour ago, Sven Groot wrote

@magicalclick: What's wrong with the taskbar? Other than the missing start button it seems exactly the same to me.

The taskbar failed to switch to an app that I was using a minute ago which I didn't  terminate. The taskbar acted to hide itself in various occasion that wasn't in gaming mode or slideshow or screensaver or movie mode, while I specifically set the taskbar to be always visible and on top as a default behavior since win95.

If you take your time to understand the principles, you will understand what I mean. And yes, I perfectly know it is by design, and by design, the taskbar no longer functions as expected.

Taskbar = always visible instant access to switching tasks that I am and was doing not long ago. There are ways to prioritize those tasks for me and I am open to discussion about it. But if I was using it a minute ago, I need the app to be switchable through this instant taskbar.

Example,

Try VS development while you use IE Metro to access MSDN, and then multi-tasking on metro mail, metro calendar, metro music, metro PDF reader in single monitor.

The issue is with taskbar because it is a core component of win8 and it no longer function as expected. It is taskbar's job to maintain its functionality throughout the windows evolution.

I understand your point, but, if taskbar no longer function due to new driver model and DX17, it is still the taskbar's fault to not able to maintain its functionality.

True, just that, taskbar is now even more broken, and it is intentionally by design from the big MS themselves. I used to simply uninstall crapware that didn't properly show itself on the taskbar. The sad part is, there is not much choice when the entire metro system is violating taskbar functionality. I still have a choice to boycott, but, it is not at per application basis anymore.

Here's the litmus test:

1. From Windows 7, turn off auto-hide on your taskbar the way you like it.
2. Open up IE or Chrome.
3. Press F11.
4. Tell us what you see.

Now explain to us how you've come to the conclusion that when IE or Chrome in full-screen mode in Windows 7 covers the taskbar, which is supposed to be ALWAYS visible (unless it's in "gaming mode or slideshow or screensaver or movie mode" or whatever arbitrary rule you decide), it's OK and it's expected behavior, but when a Metro-style app in Windows 8 covers the taskbar, it's not OK.

If it helps you to understand why Metro-style apps behave the way they do, just think of all Metro-style apps as running in "slideshow mode" and only in slideshow mode.

1 minute ago, magicalclick wrote

@Sven Groot:

True, just that, taskbar is now even more broken, and it is intentionally by design from the big MS themselves. I used to simply uninstall crapware that didn't properly show itself on the taskbar. The sad part is, there is not much choice when the entire metro system is violating taskbar functionality. I still have a choice to boycott, but, it is not at per application basis anymore.

"More broken" in whose eyes? It works exactly the way I expect it work.

Why don't you explain how you think it's supposed to be? Is there some common knowledge definition of what gaming mode or slideshow mode or screensaver mode or movie mode is what applications are allowed to use it?

What I do disagree with is your use of the words "broken" and "crippled". To me that implies that intended functionality is not there, or that previously existing functionality is no longer working (correctly). The taskbar has never shown or been visible in metro apps (since metro didn't exist before), so nothing has been broken.

Metro is for all intents and purposes an entirely separate UI existing next to the desktop. The taskbar is not part of this UI (which makes sense because, regardless of what MS may claim, metro is primarily a tablet UI). And as I already pointed out, it was never "always visible" and "showed everything" in the first place. It was designed this way and is functioning as designed, and is therefore not broken.

You don't agree with the design, and your complaints may be legitimate, but that doesn't mean it's broken. It just means you don't agree with the design.

I've been a beta tester of Windows since Win2k for every version except 8 (since the technical beta program no longer exists). Like it or not, when a bug gets closed as "by design" it means everything is working as intended. You may not like it, but at that point it's a feature, not a bug, even if it's a feature you don't like.

like I said, I had choice. If IE9 and Chrome always F11 and cannot be changed and taskbar is always auto-hide and cannot be changed. Then, we can talk about how frustrating it is to use Chrome and auto-hidden taskbar.

what's my definition? What do you think my definition is? I think I have already explained it. Which part of it is not clear enough or confusing that you want me to explain in detail? I am not trying to play words with technicality. It will not go anywhere when this gets into political correctness competition.

Thanks for the understanding. I really appreciated it. I do agree my poor use of wording. It is inccorect word, I am using this word because it is closer to how I feel.

4 hours ago, wkempf wrote

It's totally non-scientific, but the Windows Developer Show podcast holds a weekly "Weigh In Wednesday" straw poll, and this weeks is about Windows 8 on the Desktop.

Using Windows 8 on a "Desktop" PC is...

• Wonderful! (48% with 96 votes)
• Okay (35% with 70 votes)
• Challenging (10% with 21 votes)
• Terrible! (7% with 15 votes)

You can argue about the audience here skewing the results, but most of the places I frequent where people rant and rave about the Windows 8 changes are frequented by the same developer types. So these results shocked me. 83% of the 202 votes were favorable here.

http://windowsdevelopershow.com/wiw/

I wouldn't take that as accurate by any means, anyone with Windows 8 installed is an enthusiast, so it is a bit like asking how many atheists there are at Sunday School.

This is an Mojave type experiment, where they are Preaching to the Choir.

2 hours ago, pathfinder wrote

 I also have another windows 8 tip.   How to disable the lock screen:

1. Run gpedit.msc
2. Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Control Panel -> Personalization
3. Set "Do not display the lock screen" to enable.

 

Another purely daft inclusion in the desktop OS, works on a tablet, but going to irritate users

2 hours ago, JeremyJ wrote

@pathfinder:  I think that is the main problem.  You used it for two hours and gave up.  That sounds like you weren't really going to give it a fair shake anyway.  You installed it just to say you did.  You think setting up a Linux box is easier than learning the start screen???  

Learning the new way to do things does have a learning curve but once you get used to it, it is actually pretty nice, even on a desktop.  I like the fact that my screen feels more alive because I am getting the information I am looking for all in one place.  I don't have to keep opening up seperate apps just to keep up on my email, messages, friends, news, etc.  I just glance at the screen and see it all right there.  It is the same reason I like WP7.  I like that my computer is now very responsive and fast.  It doesn't feel as laggy as it did running Windows 7. 

I think it is a good upgrade (especially considering the price) if people would be willing to give it a fair try.  Too many people don't like things because they are different and don't like change.  They also read on blogs that they shouldn't like it so their opinions get tainted.  I honestly commend Microsoft for having the balls to be bold and make huge changes to try and stay competetive.  It may or may not work, but at least they tried.

I agree, I am getting used to it, and in my profession have no choice otherwise be left behind. The truth of the matter is that this is not really complete, both for the desktop experience that won't go away (looking at IT projects being commissioned at present) and the tablet experience that will start to get exciting towards the end of the first service pack or Windows 9.

WP7 generally was also incomplete with Android thrashing it in many areas, I know a number of people that adored WP7, but the announcements that is was being killed, poor screen resolution etc. mean that you are a pure fanboi, which is not bad thing but that is why sales are poor.

11 minutes ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

I wouldn't take that as accurate by any means, anyone with Windows 8 installed is an enthusiast, so it is a bit like asking how many atheists there are at Sunday School.

This is an Mojave type experiment, where they are Preaching to the Choir.

How do you explain away the 17% that hated it? They're enthusiasts too, by your definition, but they aren't singing in the choir.

1 hour ago, Sven Groot wrote

 What I do disagree with is your use of the words "broken" and "crippled". To me that implies that intended functionality is not there, or that previously existing functionality is no longer working (correctly). The taskbar has never shown or been visible in metro apps (since metro didn't exist before), so nothing has been broken. 

I think is was Anders Hejlsberg that said that a programming language does not get better by taking stuff away, but for people used to using widgets and not keystrokes, broken and crippled will be what their reaction will be.

I would say 80 to 90 percent of 9'ers will be prepared to retrain, but it is the people without IT support that will find it most difficult, even if Windows 8 is successful (which I want it to be), it is not going to be a smooth road getting there.

3 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

How do you explain away the 17% that hated it? They're enthusiasts too, by your definition, but they aren't singing in the choir.

You are part of the choir, as such, your question is as a choir member would ask.

My assertion is perfectly logical to one that is impartial.

26 minutes ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

You are part of the choir, as such, your question is as a choir member would ask.

My assertion is perfectly logical to one that is impartial.

What I am is immaterial to the poll, as I didn't participate in it. Your assertion was that the opinions of those taking the poll are skewed by the mere fact that they installed Windows 8. Are you claiming that only 83% of those that took the poll have skewed opinions and the other 17% don't?

5 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

What I am is immaterial to the poll, as I didn't participate in it. Your assertion was that the opinions of those taking the poll are skewed by the mere fact that they installed Windows 8. Are you claiming that only 83% of those that took the poll have skewed opinions and the other 17% don't?

Do me a favour, ask 10 non-developers or IT professionals tomorrow if they have installed  Windows 8 (or even used it) and tell me if that is 17% or 83%

10 minutes ago, contextfree` wrote

@vesuvius: Actually the lock screen is a feature I like in Windows 8 (on any PC form factor), it tells me what's going on right when I sit down at my computer (or even without doing so), it's pretty, and it goes away in one click.

I like when I enter my password, login in seconds, hit internet explorer and in milliseconds BAM!

That is worth the full price of the OS on its own.

13 minutes ago, contextfree` wrote

@vesuvius: Actually the lock screen is a feature I like in Windows 8 (on any PC form factor), it tells me what's going on right when I sit down at my computer (or even without doing so), it's pretty, and it goes away in one click.

I thought Start Screen tiles were supposed to be able to do that. Seems kinda redundant.

This is Windows 7, and this is *not* the Start Menu.

How do I know this? Because...

And when I do "Pin to Start Menu", it ends up here:

So what is the Start Menu in Windows 7? It's just a short list of program shortcuts that you can't organize.

10 minutes ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

Do me a favour, ask 10 non-developers or IT professionals tomorrow if they have installed  Windows 8 (or even used it) and tell me if that is 17% or 83%

What do non-developers have to do with responses on a developer site questionnaire? And for that matter, what makes you think those responding have to have installed Windows 8? There have been scores of developers telling everyone for ages that Windows 8 on a desktop is going to be unusable, many of whom hadn't even installed it on a desktop.

@cbae: No, that's the pinned shortcut area of the Start Menu. The Start Menu is everything that shows up in that rectangle that appears when you click the Start button (or Orb or Pearl or whatever they were calling it last)

7 minutes ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

Do me a favour, ask 10 non-developers or IT professionals tomorrow if they have installed  Windows 8 (or even used it) and tell me if that is 17% or 83%

Do me a favor, and tell me how the opinions of developers would skew more toward liking the Windows 8 interface vs. that of non-developers? Conventional wisdom says that developers would be the ones that most likely despise what many consider the "dummified" UI of Windows 8. If anything your assumption about the demographics of the respondents would predict an even greater acceptance of the UI, if the poll were to be opened to a larger cross section of the population.

54 seconds ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

@cbae: No, that's the pinned shortcut area of the Start Menu. The Start Menu is everything that shows up in that rectangle that appears when you click the Start button (or Orb or Pearl or whatever they were calling it last)

You can call it what you want, but the behavior of "Pin to Start Menu" and the label of the menu option suggest that the Start Menu is ONLY the area that you want to call the "pinned shortcut area of the Start Menu".

If you are going to arbitrarily define the "Start Menu" as "everything that renders within the rectangle when you click the Start Button", then we can say that the "Start Menu" in Windows 8 includes the tile screen, the tile group organizer screen, the All Apps screen, the search screen, and any dialog that shows when you click a "charm". Fine.

2 hours ago, cbae wrote

If you are going to arbitrarily define the "Start Menu" as "everything that renders within the rectangle when you click the Start Button", then we can say that the "Start Menu" in Windows 8 includes the tile screen, the tile group organizer screen, the All Apps screen, the search screen, and any dialog that shows when you click a "charm". Fine.

Who said it doesn't?

12 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

Who said it doesn't?

The claim is that features were removed from the Windows 8 "Start Menu" and that something needs to be added back to get a better experience. So if you are going to do a fair comparison, then you need to compare the live tiles screen of Windows 8 to only that lame "pinned section of the Windows 7 Start Menu" as AndyC calls it. And if you are going to expand what the Windows 7 Start Menu is to "everything that shows up in that rectangle that appears when you click the Start button", then you need to compare that to "everything that shows up full screen after you click the little Start Screen thumbnail that shows up when you hover your mouse over the lower left hot corner" in Windows 8.

And jeez, the argument about what is or isn't the start menu is one of the most preposterous parodies of programmer pedantry I've seen in a while.

On a sheer functionality scale, all the Start Menu (my definition) actually does is provide a way to select something to ShellExecute, which clearly hasn't been removed. The complaint, whether unwarranted or not, is about how functions are exposed and not what they are.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

@cbae: I just don't see any point in trying to pretend the complaint is about a pinned list of things and not what was actually "removed", all that does is change the complaint from "The Start Menu was removed" to "The Start Menu and all that unnamed chrome around it was removed".

I was just getting started when you chimed in. My point is that nothing has been removed. What? No Start Button? Here it is:

And "All the unnamed chrome around the Start Menu"? You get to this by right-clicking on the Windows 8 "Start Button":

On a sheer functionality scale, all the Start Menu (my definition) actually does is provide a way to select something to ShellExecute, which clearly hasn't been removed. The complaint, whether unwarranted or not, is about how functions are exposed and not what they are.

It goes beyond simply what is exposed. Besides the obvious complaint about aesthetics, one major complaint about the "Start Screen" or the "live tile screen" in Windows 8 is that, while it's organizable, it can become cluttered, unlike the nicely-organized Program Groups in Windows 7.

This is when the complainers are comparing the wrong two features. The Program Groups in Windows 7, which you can get to by clicking "All Programs", has its analog in Windows 8 when you right-click and click "All Apps". While having to right-click before clicking "All Apps" adds a mouse click, the Program Groups in Windows 8 don't require drilling down. It's at worst a wash and at best a far better experience in Windows 8 IMHO.

As for the live tile screen becoming cluttered, that's an issue with installer programs pinning too many shortcuts to Start. Regardless, the multi-select menu of the live tile screen makes it trivial to unpin multiple items from Start, which you can't do in Windows 7. You can easily make the live tile screen as austere as the Start Menu image that I posted earlier. The reason my Start Menu in Windows 7 is so austere is because it's so useless as a single, unorganizable list of shortcuts. I just as soon use the Program Groups, even though it's a PITA to have to drill down to find anything.

But the ability to group pinned items and the ability to rearrange them in Windows 8, which you can't do in what you call the "pinned section of the Start Menu" (that in actuality is the entire embodiment of the Start Menu), makes this, again, at worst a wash and at best a win for Windows 8.

Too bad you can't actually click that "button". And that right click menu seems to be missing all the known folder items (and shutdown/sleep). Hardly equivalent. And there's the jump lists they added to start menu items in Win7. That lasted a whole version.

19 hours ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

I wouldn't take that as accurate by any means, anyone with Windows 8 installed is an enthusiast, so it is a bit like asking how many atheists there are at Sunday School.

This is an Mojave type experiment, where they are Preaching to the Choir.

Wow, did you miss the point!

Please note that I specifically pointed out that the straw poll was non-scientific and that you could argue about the audience skewing the results. That WAS the point. Rather than arguing for or against the point, you chose to argue about the audience skewing the results. Brilliant!

Let me try and make the point (more of an observation) a little more clear. C9 is full of people who have installed Windows 8 and are obviously enthusiasts. Yet, if you ask how many of the C9 followers are "athiests", err, Windows 8 lovers, I suspect the results would be exactly opposite of what the WDS straw poll showed. That's why the results shocked me.

As @cbae pointed out, yes, the audience and the low numbers of the poll certainly means the results are going to be skewed and not represantative of the population at large, but the direction in which those results would be/should be skewed is very debatable. Based on my experiences here and elsewhere, I expected the skew to be in the other direction, as especially developers tend to be the most vocal and resistant to change.

6 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

@cbae:

Too bad you can't actually click that "button".

LOLWUT? Of course, you can click it. What are you supposed to do? Stare at it? How else are you supposed to invoke the live tile screen by mouse?

And that right click menu seems to be missing all the known folder items (and shutdown/sleep).

Some items (like sleep and shutdown) have been moved elsewhere, but this right-click menu has other items that you wouldn't see in Windows 7 at all (e.g. Task Manager) or would be buried in a pop-up menu, which isn't enabled by default, or worse, buried in "All Programs". I'd rather have items that I use all the time like File Explorer, Event Viewer, Command Prompt, and Task Manager (items that I use multiple times per day) more readily available like they are in Windows 8 than something like "Devices and Printers" or "Default Programs" (rarely used) or even "Shutdown" (used maybe one time a day)  like they are in Windows 7. Again, it's at worst a wash, and at best a win for Windows 8.

Hardly equivalent. And there's the jump lists they added to start menu items in Win7. That lasted a whole version.

Jump lists are available in task bar items in Windows 8 just as they are in Windows 7. If you're claiming that they are available in the Start Menu or in "All Programs" groups, then I'm not seeing them in Windows 7.

Just hop onto gamespot and do the survey instead. All of the reactions they have matched actual outcome very well. This includes, Xbox survivability, vista fail, steam awesome, android trend, ff adoption, chrome popularity, win7 success, games for windows fail, onlive fail, Zune fail, anf more.

I would say, Gsmespot is the only place you need to look for tech oriented product reactions.

Why? Because they are large group of highly opinionate aggresive tech friendly young hip people who can be very convincing to tell clueless casual users what to buy without being nerdy. And part of these people will be the new generation that pave the next innovation.

3 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

@wkempf:

Just hop onto gamespot and do the survey instead. All of the reactions they have matched actual outcome very well. This includes, Xbox survivability, vista fail, steam awesome, android trend, ff adoption, chrome popularity, win7 success, games for windows fail, onlive fail, Zune fail, anf more.

I would say, Gsmespot is the only place you need to look for tech oriented product reactions.

Why? Because they are large group of highly opinionate aggresive tech friendly young hip people who can be very convincing to tell clueless casual users what to buy without being nerdy. And part of these people will be the new generation that pave the next innovation.

"pave the next innovation"? LOL A site like that is where content CONSUMERS hang out. They are not the content creators. At best they are the types that know how to overclock their GPUs. Big * whoop.

8 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

@cbae:

And there's the jump lists they added to start menu items in Win7. That lasted a whole version.

The Windows7 start menu doesn't have jump lists. The arrows next to commonly used programs show you "recent documents" using that program. That's not the same.

Jump lists are just there when you rightclick taskbar items. And so far as I'm aware they're still there in Win8.

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

LOLWUT? Of course, you can click it. What are you supposed to do? Stare at it? How else are you supposed to invoke the live tile screen by mouse?

You can click in the corner. You can't actually click on the graphic (unless you're also completely in the corner).

*snip*

Some items (like sleep and shutdown) have been moved elsewhere, but this right-click menu has other items that you wouldn't see in Windows 7 at all (e.g. Task Manager) or would be buried in a pop-up menu, which isn't enabled by default, or worse, buried in "All Programs". I'd rather have items that I use all the time like File Explorer, Event Viewer, Command Prompt, and Task Manager (items that I use multiple times per day) more readily available like they are in Windows 8 than something like "Devices and Printers" or "Default Programs" (rarely used) or even "Shutdown" (used maybe one time a day)  like they are in Windows 7. Again, it's at worst a wash, and at best a win for Windows 8.

So the right click menu of the task bar (task bar. task manager), where its been for 17 years is "buried", but a right click menu in the corner isn't? And as for the rest, yeah some of it is handy. Some of it could easily have been pinned to the start menu (or even the start screen).

Jump lists are available in task bar items in Windows 8 just as they are in Windows 7. If you're claiming that they are available in the Start Menu or in "All Programs" groups, then I'm not seeing them in Windows 7.

Sorry, I meant the MRU lists. Point is the feature was there for one release before being cast aside to chase teh new shiny.

3 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

Sorry, I meant the MRU lists. Point is the feature was there for one release before being cast aside to chase teh new shiny.

It's the damn statistics. Unless MS can tell from their data that 90% of users are clicking something daily, it seems to be a death sentence these days.

4 hours ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

"pave the next innovation"? LOL A site like that is where content CONSUMERS hang out. They are not the content creators. At best they are the types that know how to overclock their GPUs. Big * whoop.

Oh wow, just wow.

6 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

It's the damn statistics. Unless MS can tell from their data that 90% of users are clicking something daily, it seems to be a death sentence these days.

I agree and as such I am clicking the crap out of everything I like.

52 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I agree and as such I am clicking the crap out of everything I like.

It's like a UI feature tamagotchi; if you don't keep feeding it usage data, it will die.

1 day ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

It's like a UI feature tamagotchi; if you don't keep feeding it usage data, it will die.

Yea.

Automating this would be a cool idea for an app.

There are two disparate work areas; the old windows desktop with its task bar and the new "metro UI"... I'd have no real issue with the mix of full screen apps and desktop apps, if they shared a single task area.

I frequently find myself "loosing" a window, for instance by opening Chrome in the fullscreen UI then continuing to work in office in the desktop mode. Naturally alt-tab will allow me to switch back, but I find it very disconnected and arbitrary to not be able use the taskbar to switch between tasks.

Right now the whole OS feels like it's separated into a touchUI and a clickUI and doesn't give me a smooth productive user experience. I'm incredibly disappointed, as I've been really looking forward to Windows 8.

The only place I find it annoying at the moment is moving between IE one the desktop and IE Windows Store app* and I only ever have to do that because of the weird and arbitrary decision over Flash. I'd love to believe Flash would disappear overnight and then it would be a non-issue, but I don't see it happening and really think Microsoft need to reconsider that, perhaps moving to a blacklist rather than a whitelist for Flash in IE.

*Yeah, that name really works, doesn't it?

The only place I find it annoying at the moment is moving between IE one the desktop and the IE app 

Fixed. And yes, I know that technically bla bla bla but everyone will know what you mean.

1 hour ago, Sven Groot wrote

@AndyC: I never need to switch because I only use desktop IE. Why would I want a browser to be full screen?

You might want it to be a third/two-thirds of the screen, tho maybe? Metro apps are not only fullscreen in RTM.

I'm aware of the option to dock them on the side, but it's useless. The IE app just doesn't lend itself to having stuff on call while I'm developing in VS. I can't even really put it on the second screen, because if I do that, all Metro stuff (including the start screen) moves to that screen, which is just the stupidest thing ever.

I'm on a regular desktop PC, with two large monitors. I simply see no reason to ever have anything run full screen. And docking it on the side is nice in theory, but then it pushes the entire desktop aside, and I can't put any windows on top of it without first undocking it again. Plus, there's a pointlessly huge border dividing the docked app and the rest of the screen (I'm using a mouse, I don't need a 10 pixel divider).

Metro is nice, I'm sure it's great on tablets, but I simply have yet to discover anything I would want it for on the desktop. Every time I find an app that's potentially nice, the same thought runs through my head: "if only I could run this in a window..."

2 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

@evildictaitor: You mean I can make them overlapped at any size, like we've been able to do for the last 20 years? If you can tell me how I'll give you a dollar.

Sadly not.

One nice feature of Metro's thirds is that other Windows then respect the fact that you have something that shouldn't be overlapped and maximise accordingly.

This means you can, for example, have, say Windows Live Messenger in one third, and use your desktop in the other two thirds. No matter what you do to your desktop, nobody will ever pop their window over or under your metro third, and you can still Aero-snap on your desktop to maximise (to two-thirds screen) any app you're running.

13 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@CarlHead: You can't really have Windows Store apps* on the Taskbar...

The only place I find it annoying at the moment is moving between IE one the desktop and IE Windows Store app*...

*Yeah, that name really works, doesn't it? 

Thank you Andy.

I think Windows 8 SP1 will be a nice update that ties up all of these loose ends.

3 hours ago, Harlequin wrote

Was a lot of posts and walls of text, but I don't think anyone mentioned that there is a Metro taskbar. On a tablet, you swipe it in from the left, on the desktop you put your mouse in the top left corner, then move it down a bit and it will show [as many] metro apps running [as it can fit in the vertical space]...

No disrespect but I fixed a small discrepancy for ya. When you add in the idea that Windows Store apps are designed not needing to be closed all of a sudden this makes the Windows Store app taskbar pretty useless. Do you close the apps to make the taskbar useful or do you leave the apps open because you are not supposed to have to close them?

4 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

No disrespect but I fixed a small discrepancy for ya. When you add in the idea that Windows Store apps are designed not needing to be closed all of a sudden this makes the Windows Store app taskbar pretty useless. Do you close the apps to make the taskbar useful or do you leave the apps open because you are not supposed to have to close them?

It's not useless though, it just isn't intended for the purpose you're trying to suggest it should be. It's more a MRU list for Metro* apps. Even if you "close" them to try and pretend that it is showing "running" apps, reality soon breaks when, for example, someone sends you an IM (for example) and the Messenger app which wasn't "running" pops a notification up on screen (and still doesn't appear in the MRU list till you actively open it).

You have to let go the idea that trying to somehow use "running" applications as some sort of mental "what am I doing" list makes much sense - even the old-school Taskbar was pretty rubbish at doing that, because it could only ever give you a single "grouping" (so no real-world multi-tasking for you) and couldn't persist beyond reboots etc. You can probably far more usefully manage your time and thought processes with a Metro* to-do list style app pinned to the side of the screen than you ever could with the Taskbar.

*Yeah, I said it. Sticking to that till a less silly designation happens

11 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

No disrespect but I fixed a small discrepancy for ya. When you add in the idea that Windows Store apps are designed not needing to be closed all of a sudden this makes the Windows Store app taskbar pretty useless. Do you close the apps to make the taskbar useful or do you leave the apps open because you are not supposed to have to close them?

That's true of the taskbar in Windows 7 too, but in practice people don't tend to have bajillions of applications or WSapps open at a time, so it's not a big deal.

Generally you only want a complete list of apps if you've lost something you were using ages ago (in Metro you get this by clicking the app again from the start screen) or to close down the apps you're not using (you can do this via the new easier-for-noobs-to-use Win8 task-manager or by right-clicking the items in the Metro-taskbar to close).

Apart from those two things which are both catered for in Win8, what else do you need the Metro-taskbar to do that it doesn't currently?

I'm not seeing what the issue is???

3 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

That's true of the taskbar in Windows 7 too, but in practice people don't tend to have bajillions of applications or WSapps open at a time, so it's not a big deal.

Generally you only want a complete list of apps if you've lost something you were using ages ago (in Metro you get this by clicking the app again from the start screen) or to close down the apps you're not using (you can do this via the new easier-for-noobs-to-use Win8 task-manager or by right-clicking the items in the Metro-taskbar to close).

Apart from those two things which are both catered for in Win8, what else do you need the Metro-taskbar to do that it doesn't currently?

It's not true of the W7 taskbar; it can be multi-row, and can contain a ton more apps.

And if you follow the idea that people don't close their Windows Store apps then they will have a bazillion apps open. Ok maybe an even dozen.

The task manager is fantastic but not something that Joe Schmo is going to know how to get to easily. Oh wait that's everything in W8 so you're right. They will find it useful.

The Windows Store app taskbar is more like a MRU list and not like the W7 taskbar that is so uber.

What else should it do?

• Show a nice "x" on the thumbnails that I can click to close the app (like Windows Store IE's tabs) without having to right-click to bring up a context menu.
• Provide jump lists like the desktop's task bar.

@Harlequin:

You've got room for a few more. Open four or five more Windows Store apps and you'll see that some apps won't be represented in the list. The list doesn't scroll.

1 hour ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

What else should it do?

• Show a nice "x" on the thumbnails that I can click to close the app (like Windows Store IE's tabs) without having to right-click to bring up a context menu.
• Provide jump lists like the desktop's task bar.

But that's just a lame attempt to reinvent the Taskbar and bring back a whole bunch of legacy behaviours that Metro apps are intended to get away from. Having to manually manage application lifecycles is just stupid, if that behaviour hadn't been thrust upon us out of necessity for the last 40-odd years nobody would think it actually makes sense. It's like having to manually remember to save documents so that you don't lose your work, once upon a time there was little choice but to write applications like that, simply because you couldn't guarantee that a storage medium was even available at any given time and even if it was, it was too slow and limited to be something you could take advantage of. Those days are long behind us and yet we're still forcing end users through the same old ridiculous rituals - it's the cargo cult mentality personified.

Imagine for a moment if your TV worked like that. You had to manually "close" channels when you weren't watching them and you could only flick between the ones you currently had "open". To switch to a channel you didn't have open, you had to go into a separate menu and start it up. Of course you'd also have to be careful not to have too many open at once, because even though you're only watching one having too many open would cause things to get slow and jittery. And you'd also have to be careful not to close ones your PVR was set to record, otherwise it would just fail. It's ridiculous to even think that would be better and yet here we are in the 21st century with people actually arguing the PC is better if the OS doesn't do it's job and manage resources for you.

Really simply Andy... The point was made that the Windows Store app "taskbar" was akin to the W7 taskbar. I suggested it wasn't because, according to some, Windows Store apps aren't meant to be closed therefore the taskbar was more akin to an MRU list. EvilD asked me how I'd improve it and I gave my opinion.

Great apology... er... I mean thoughtful post.

Let's just call it a big phone shall we?

1 hour ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

@AndyC:

Let's just call it a big phone shall we?

What you're missing is that if you were designing an OS from scratch today with absolutely no legacy cruft whatsoever, even if you went with a "desktop" style paradigm with overlapping windows etc, you still wouldn't design it in a way that requires users to "open" or "close" applications. It's a throwback concept to a more simplistic design age. It just doesn't make sense to burden the user with that kind of manual resource management when the OS is far more capable at doing it - that way you let the user focus more time on the thing they are actually trying to accomplish.

Likewise, closing an application is a habit and also not part of the task of using an application.

Designers seek to optimize tasks rather than what people have learned to do. Otherwise, there would be no progress and you'd just be retaining something that just doesn't make sense in the current context. For example, in an app-centric world, does it make sense to have to open and close 12+ apps in the same session?

The users might not know what is really happening. That is, until they call support and wonder why their computer is making constant clicking noises and is running like a dog, or stuff randomly breaks because some important middleman felt like their packets aren't worth routing at this time. Then they will have to know, perhaps some time after they slam their computer against a concrete wall.

5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

The users might not know what is really happening. That is, until they call support and wonder why their computer is making constant clicking noises and is running like a dog, or stuff randomly breaks because some important middleman felt like their packets aren't worth routing at this time. Then they will have to know, perhaps some time after they slam their computer against a concrete wall.

And then you can legitimately argue the OS is doing a crap job. Designing the user interface around the idea your OS is going to be appallingly bad at the one job it is supposed to do seems like an amazingly poor strategy though.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

What you're missing is that if you were designing an OS from scratch today with absolutely no legacy cruft whatsoever, even if you went with a "desktop" style paradigm with overlapping windows etc, you still wouldn't design it in a way that requires users to "open" or "close" applications. It's a throwback concept to a more simplistic design age. It just doesn't make sense to burden the user with that kind of manual resource management when the OS is far more capable at doing it - that way you let the user focus more time on the thing they are actually trying to accomplish.

No you're missing the point. The Windows Store app "task bar" cannot be considered like the W7/W8 desktop taskbar because it doesn't show all open apps and living with the idea that you don't need you close apps (good or bad) hammers that idea home. That was it. Simple. Instead you choose to whip up some apology for the over simplified Windows Store app environment.

Well, not until it has SkyNet levels of AI and mind reading capability built in. Maybe it can also post on Channel 9 for me too. Oh and take over the world and exterminate the inferior carbon-based lifeforms. But that OS would probably come from Google, not Microsoft.

Typically, if I use Remote Desktop, I'm constantly switching between my local desktop and the remote one. If I stay away from the Remote Desktop app for a few seconds too long, it gets suspended and has to reconnect, which takes about 10 seconds so it highly annoying.

It's also a bit annoying that the Windows key opens the remote start screen, but the lower left corner opens the local one. Since they're full screen and I have similar stuff installed on both machines, I sometimes don't realize I've switched away from the remote machine by accident.

@AndyC: Your TV analogy falls down because with a TV, no one is ever working with multiple channels simultaneously. On a PC however, I frequently am using numerous applications simultaneously (often upwards of ten). It therefore makes sense to have a conveniently grouped area where I can see those applications that are relevant to me right now, and a way to remove them from this area when I finish using any one of them. The taskbar does this beautifully, the Metro thing on the left does not because it has too little space and is not always visible.

Then again, Metro apps aren't designed for this scenario anyway. If they were meant to be used more than two at a time, they wouldn't be full screen!

@Sven Groot: Yeah but the idea of "grouping" on the Taskbar only works if you're working on one single task at a time (even if that's one task involving multiple applications). Speaking personally I'm rarely lucky enough to be in that position and am constantly "real world multitasking" and having to move between different real world tasks, each of which involve multiple (sometimes overlapping) sets of applications. The Taskbar is hopeless at that, it doesn't really offer anything to help other than it's basic functionality as an application switching mechanism. ALT-TAB and the Metro list thing are far, far more useful in that regard because both put the focus on what I've been using most recently.

17 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

@AndyC: Your TV analogy falls down because with a TV, no one is ever working with multiple channels simultaneously. On a PC however, I frequently am using numerous applications simultaneously (often upwards of ten). It therefore makes sense to have a conveniently grouped area where I can see those applications that are relevant to me right now, and a way to remove them from this area when I finish using any one of them. The taskbar does this beautifully, the Metro thing on the left does not because it has too little space and is not always visible.

Yup. Also the "initialization" time of switching between channels is not too bad. I got a quad-core and spinning up some processes until they allow interactive input can take seconds.

Channels don't have impossible to predict behaviors either that take random amounts of resources from the TV at any given time. Nor are they really stateful in any important way.

Also if you let the OS randomly ("intelligently") kill processes you can run into problem where the process was doing something important and now it gets stuck in a state where the next time it runs it has to read from a journal, or possibly lose state important to the user. That's assuming it is well designed and can even properly recover from invalid states.

Relevantly, this process killing thing has been in Linux since forever. However, it only runs when the system is under extreme duress in regards to available memory. I suppose you can have it run periodically, but that would be silly.

8 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

Yup. Also the "initialization" time of switching between channels is not too bad. I got a quad-core and spinning up some processes until they allow interactive input can take seconds.

Which only adds to the argument, "Why does starting a process have to be different to switching to one? Why can't they always just be 'running'?" FWIW, Apple have been trying to move down this road (with varying degrees of success) ever since the introduction of OS X and the Dock.

8 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

Channels don't have impossible to predict behaviors either that take random amounts of resources from the TV at any given time. Nor are they really stateful in any important way.

Like all analogies, it only goes so far. Regardless, the OS has to do this anyway, any process running on your machine might suddenly demand random resources and it's the job of the OS to provide it what it needs without affecting anything else (and certainly without disrupting the responsiveness for any interactive user). How well it can do this is a metric of how good an OS is.

Look back at the Classic, pre OS X, Mac OS for example. You had to tell each application in advance how much memory it had, which Mac OS would then dutifully allocate. If an app tried to use more than the user had allocated, it failed, even if the system had plenty of free RAM. You could have argued, at the time, that doing so prevented any one application's 'random' behaviour from impacting the rest of the system and gave the user more control. You wouldn't even think of arguing that today though, the idea of burdening the user with such trivial resource management sounds ridiculous. Burdening them the process management is no less ridiculous, it's simply extra work that detracts from whatever it is they're really trying to accomplish.

8 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

Also if you let the OS randomly ("intelligently") kill processes you can run into problem where the process was doing something important and now it gets stuck in a state where the next time it runs it has to read from a journal, further degrading performance. That's assuming it is well designed and can even properly recover from invalid states.

That's only an issue if the system design doesn't include a mechanism for the OS to indicate "you're going to die in X seconds, get into a safe state now" which might be true of old-style systems but certainly doesn't have to be the case and isn't with, for example, Metro style apps (IIRC recent versions of OS X include something similar too).

And a system that works like this, by default, gets substantial advantages too. Applications have to save state as they go, system updates can be applied whenever it suits and all applications have to be able to pick up and carry on from where they were. Also continuous checkpointing mean that applications are also far more likely to be robust enough to cope with an unexpected outage (power loss, bluescreen etc) than applications that live under the old (but naïve) assumption that they have a traditional start/work/quit-at-their-own-pace lifecycle.

You ought to look at SIGTERM and SIGKILL. This idea has been around since the proverbial dinosaurs.

The idea of the system over committing illusion is also pretty damn old. That new revolutionary technology is called virtual memory. You tell me how many people enjoy the experience of having most of the application's working data in swap. Not fun. Killing the process and removing all its state as an "alternative" to virtual memory isn't some magical workaround to this either, it's actually substantially more insane. That's why competently programed operating systems tend to use that capability as a last resort when even virtual memory fails.

Actually it goes further than that. The difference between a TV channel and a computer program is very precise and I would say fundamental.

The process execution is Turing complete (or has the potential to be), and the TV channel is not. As you probably already know, once your engine of computation is Turing complete, a whole world of computational analysis becomes relevant.

And nobody said anything about killing applications as an alternative to VM. Windows 8 doesn't even do that, it'll happily suspend apps and shove their entire working set to VM if it can do that rather than actually kill something. It still has the ability to kill a suspended app if it wants to though and can do so knowing that app will cope (because for all it knew the last "suspend" was it being closed). This is a massive benefit when it comes to trying to service the OS, for example, because the problem of getting the end user back to "where they were" just goes away.

As for whether people enjoy the experience of working from swap, I'll just point out that, once again, the ability to manage resources so that the end user doesn't experience that, regardless of how many applications they have open, is a perfectly good metric for how good an OS actually is. The minute the OS actually starts forcing you to close applications (and decide which ones will be most effective to close) in order that it can manage resource effectively, you have a crap OS.

12 minutes ago, Bass wrote

The process is Turing complete (or has the potential to be),

Ok, I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't think Turing complete is the phrase you were looking for (though I can't quite figure out what was)

TV channels are quite restricted on what they can do (they can put frames of images on your screen and maybe some metadata). So safer assumptions about what happens when you funnel a video stream to a TV can be made. Computer programs are not like TV channels..

Neither can you reasonably make the assumption that "process faults" (new word?) won't occur in the system that you are describing. And I'll tell you I rather have a page fault then a process fault.

I think you're massively over-complicating how it actually works; the OS doesn't ever have to reason about execution, it simply keeps track of what state a process is in and whether it therefore needs to schedule any CPU time for it. Likewise it responds to requests for memory or IO as and when they happen (ignoring for a moment that memory managers often pre-empt expected future requests). 

There is no difference in resource management for an OS in which all processes are conceptually always running than one where you've manually launched them all and just left them open. The OS already has to do the difficult balancing act of moving things in and out of memory, allocating CPU /GPU shares, balancing IO contention etc. It doesn't get any more difficult because you add other processes that are conceptually running but not actually demanding any resources at that particular time, because things not demanding any resources are a non issue. Even on Windows/Linux/MacOS today the OS itself doesn't actually care that a process is "launching" as opposed to just moving from the "waiting" to the "ready to run" queues.

It certainly matters to application developers, because it changes many of the assumptions about how it's acceptable for a process to behave and particularly what it means for a process to start or stop (there is a much greater emphasis on getting back to where you left off for example). And it matters to end-users because it relieves them of having to do things they might otherwise forget (ye olde "I didn't get the reminder because I forgot to start Outlook problem"). The OS itself (whether Windows, Linux or Mac) has been treating the world as if that's how it worked for a very, very long time now.

3 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Which only adds to the argument, "Why does starting a process have to be different to switching to one? Why can't they always just be 'running'?"

So how would that work in the Remote Desktop example? The experience of randomly having to reconnect (which can take quite long) when I switch back to it is not nice. The illusion of always running falls down because if it were truly always running, it would have to be always connected. And you wouldn't want that when you're not actually using it.

I want it to stay connected while I'm using it, and disconnect when I'm finished. That requires it to stay "open" while I'm using it and an explicit mechanism to "close" it.

The fact that it randomly closes whenever I spend a few seconds too long doing something else and then has to reconnect is not only annoying, it's also confusing to the user. I know this is happening because Windows is suspending the app in the background. To an average user, who doesn't know how this works and buys into the idea that his apps are always open, it's just randomly losing the connection all the time, making it seem very unreliable. It's the law of leaky abstractions: you can try to present the apps as being always open, but in reality they're not, and at some point that's going to be noticeable (like when Remote Desktop has to reconnect).

Some applications just have legitimate state they need to keep, and sometimes restoring that state takes a long time (like the 10+ seconds to reconnect). For those applications, the "always running" illusion just falls down almost instantly. And the fact that one of the core apps from MS itself displays this so blatantly means this is hardly a hypothetical example.

@Bass: It's not just about killing apps, it's about the entire process lifecycle. From what initiates it to how it has to behave whilst 'running' right through to how it ends (regardless of whether voluntarily, at the users request or at the behest of the system itself),

@Sven Groot: Which is why Remote Desktop makes little sense as a Metro app and, as far as I can tell, only exists because Windows RT devices might need to connect to other systems remotely. It's not because the principle itself is unsound, but more because Metro tackles the "low hanging fruit" part of the problem and deliberately avoids the more challenging areas (which is simultaneously why you can't run Metro apps windowed, because you reintroduce the problems that were being deliberately left to one side till a future version)

There's no reason that in a desktop environment where application lifecycle is managed by the system, you can't maintain some semblance of "state" based on the fact an application has a window open, indeed to some degree you need to anyway (much as Metro would never suspend the foreground process). That doesn't mean that it's necessary to start every application manually (so Messenger could still inform you of a new IM without you ever having to explicitly end it and Outlook would always pop up your reminders regardless of whether you remembered you need to open it to check) Nor does it mean that closing the last "open" remote desktop windows has to actually terminate the underlying process, the OS would be free to keep it "hot" if it didn't need to relinquish the resources in case you want to use it again. The point is to free the user from unnecessary resource management, not to prevent them saying "these are the Tasks that are important to me right now"

6 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@Sven Groot: Which is why Remote Desktop makes little sense as a Metro app

Which is funny, because it's the only app that I've found even remotely (pun intended) useful. I guess because Remote Desktop is the only thing I use in my typical computer usage that I don't mind running full screen.

You're basically saying that any application that has state that takes more than a second to save/restore is better off not being a metro app. Which is incredibly limiting.

Strangely, quite a lot of the metro apps I've tried do this horribly. Pinball (another MS app), for example, basically just closes when you switch away from it. If you switch back, you go through the loading and logo screens again (takes a while), then it will ask you if you want to resume your game. It's a horrible experience.

The end goal may be laudable, but this simply isn't working well enough yet. I end up closing every metro app anyway because I don't want them to clutter my alt-tab, and when I don't want them to close, they get suspended leading to excessive resume delays.

I'm not much of a Pinball player but I can't actually get it to do that on my machine (despite launching every Office app, Zune, Visual Studio and having a few games of Minesweeper and Freecell in between). I've got a lot of ram in this machine though, so it's hard to say whether that's atypical. I just find it switches to the "Paused" screen, which seems sensible enough, though I think it'd be less jarring if it was a paused state showing the game in-play and could be un-paused by pressing one of the keys. I'd completely agree about the intro sequence though, it's one of those horrible advertising travesties that only games publishers seem to think is a good idea. Doing that is very much against the spirit of Metro and in the worse case scenario, leads to the kind of horrible experience you're seeing.

4 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: And when did I say it did? I explicitly said the sidebar thing is not a Taskbar but more akin to an MRU list. And that trying to bodge on things like Close buttons or Jumplists in order to turn it into one doesn't make sense. I know you love to disagree with everything I say just because I said it, but a least make some effort to be consistent, eh.

I disagree Andy. I think it does makes sense to have close buttons and good mouse support and jumplists because that's what desktop PCs needs and that's what people say when I plop them in front of W8. W8's new metaphor for applications life cycle et al is for devices. No matter how you try and tap dance around it W8 is a very glitchy, unfinished OS. It's a grand beta test that only a true Microsoft apologist can pile on enough "imagination" to deflect from its detractions. You know stuff like this gem:

There are very few cases where it's quite as pathological a problem as with Remote Desktop (and even that could probably do better with improvements to the underlying protocol).

Really? A few cases like remote desktop? Oh and yeah if they'd only improve those pesky protocols...

I'm not much of a Pinball player but I can't actually get it to do that on my machine (despite launching every Office app, Zune, Visual Studio and having a few games of Minesweeper and Freecell in between). I've got a lot of ram in this machine though, so it's hard to say whether that's atypical.

Oh yes because it's not a problem on your uber PC with tons of ram it certainly won't be a problem on Windows RT tablets with much less capable processors and a lot less ram. And if it a problem well they just must be holding it wrong.

1 hour ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I think it does makes sense to have close buttons ...

It does. Right click > Close.

Please make a distinction between "I can't find feature X" and "feature X does not exist".

22 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

It does. Right click > Close.

Please make a distinction between "I can't find feature X" and "feature X does not exist".

How about feature "X" is poorly implemented? Sometimes the cheese stinks when it's buried in the corner for too long.

And BTW it's called a "context menu", not a "button". I guess you're more of a back-end guy...

1 day ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I disagree Andy. I think it does makes sense to have close buttons and good mouse support and jumplists because that's what desktop PCs needs and that's what people say when I plop them in front of W8. W8's new metaphor for applications life cycle et al is for devices. No matter how you try and tap dance around it W8 is a very glitchy, unfinished OS. It's a grand beta test that only a true Microsoft apologist can pile on enough "imagination" to deflect from its detractions. You know stuff like this gem:

Under normal circumstances you don't need to close apps, so putting a close button on the switcher is just begging for someone to accidentally "click" the close button rather than on the main switching part. It what sense does it make sense to design a UI such that bringing the app you want to the foreground is easily confused with closing it?

As for Jump Lists, they're very much a file-centric/launch parameter based approach to trying to provide a quick route into an application. When you aren't launching an app, but instead switching too one, they really don't make any sense. Of course an app being able to provide such a quick route into specific functionality, for those who want it, is very handy - so much so that Windows 8 apps can perform exactly that via Secondary Tiles and in a way which is much more flexible than Jump Lists could ever be.

*snip*

Really? A few cases like remote desktop? Oh and yeah if they'd only improve those pesky protocols...

Yes, really. Aside from Remote Desktop (or an equivalent) how many actual scenarios are there in which you are so fundamentally reliant on a connection to a remote machine that they can't possibly restore a usable UI state before a connection is restored? Can you name even one?

As for improving how it works underneath, yes that can help too. I'd put good money on Citrix doing a much better job when they release the inevitable GoToMyPC Windows 8 app.

*snip*

Oh yes because it's not a problem on your uber PC with tons of ram it certainly won't be a problem on Windows RT tablets with much less capable processors and a lot less ram. And if it a problem well they just must be holding it wrong.

You're argument is all over the place (as usual). If Windows 8 and the Metro approach is, as you say, only good for mobile devices, then it won't be any more of a problem for Windows RT tablets than it is for iPad users. If applications being suspended is as issue for such devices, then naturally it'll also make the iPad (which does the same) a complete failure too (hint: it wasn't) And if it's desktops you're worried about, then the spec of my current PC (which is a laptop) isn't exactly anything stellar, so it certainly won't be over the lifespan of W8. Nor is it necessarily a sign that it'll fail to work on a less capable device either, Notepad on this machine works just as well as it does on a ten-year old PC.

1 day ago, Bass wrote

It follows from Turing that you can not make a virtual memory system that never page faults (given non-unlimited physical memory, of course), partly because you can't fully reason about execution.

I'm not sure Turing says that at all.

In fact, I think it is entirely possible to have a virtual memory system that never page faults.

For example: The non-paged pool. Also Win32k's shared session data.

The Turing halting problem says you can't write a program in an also Turing-complete language that fully tells you whether or not the other program will do X or not do X. This is because if bool Halts(Program p) is a Turing-complete function, then this program defeats the logic:

if(Halts(Program.Self)) { while(true){} } else { Environment.Exit(0); }

It doesn't say anything more profound that that. And it certainly doesn't mention whether or not Metro should close apps after a timeout or not.

5 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

And BTW it's called a "context menu", not a "button". I guess you're more of a back-end guy...

It's grey, it's got text on it telling you what it'll do, and when you click on it with the left mouse button it does something.

Doesn't matter what you call it, it's pretty button-y.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I'm not sure Turing says that at all.

In fact, I think it is entirely possible to have a virtual memory system that never page faults.

For example: The non-paged pool. Also Win32k's shared session data.

I assume he was making the common mistake of confusing "virtual memory" with "swap file", which is so ubiquitous these days that it's rarely worth correcting. It's obviously possible to have virtual memory without page faults, Windows CE for example does it across the board (it doesn't even support swapping).

3 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Under normal circumstances you don't need to close apps, so putting a close button on the switcher is just begging for someone to accidentally "click" the close button rather than on the main switching part. It what sense does it make sense to design a UI such that bringing the app you want to the foreground is easily confused with closing it?

You're argument is all over the place (as usual). So you're saying that people confuse selecting a app via thumbnail (avoiding the "x") verses selecting the "x" to close the app? Oh dear god someone call the Windows Store app IE team! Maybe they can remove their "x" from the tab thumbnails before they launch W8! Hey wait a minute...are you making fun of IE? EvilD: release the hounds...

If the concern is that the "x" may be easily (not confusedly) selected then they could hide the "x" until the mouse hovers over the tile. Oh but that would go against the great Sinofsky who once said "Write for touch, F the mouse & keyboard".  I think that's what he said anyway.

I like closing apps on my tablet so that as I swipe between them (great feature BTW) I don't have to go through this huge list of apps I no longer care about. I guess I'm the only one in the world who does this.

As for Jump Lists, they're very much a file-centric/launch parameter based approach to trying to provide a quick route into an application. When you aren't launching an app, but instead switching too one, they really don't make any sense. Of course an app being able to provide such a quick route into specific functionality, for those who want it, is very handy - so much so that Windows 8 apps can perform exactly that via Secondary Tiles and in a way which is much more flexible than Jump Lists could ever be.

Um no... It's providing a quick route to a file I had recently created. Why do you have to make up stuff like this? Instead of using common sense you create a new problem by suggesting a solution that further clutters the already over crowed start screen. Brilliant.

Yes, really. Aside from Remote Desktop (or an equivalent) how many actual scenarios are there in which you are so fundamentally reliant on a connection to a remote machine that they can't possibly restore a usable UI state before a connection is restored? Can you name even one?

As for improving how it works underneath, yes that can help too. I'd put good money on Citrix doing a much better job when they release the inevitable GoToMyPC Windows 8 app.

Great, Microsoft relying on third parties to fix problems they create rather than providing a good experience out-of-the-box. Keep doing that backstroke Andy.

I'd think that any type of terminal app would fall into the same category as remote desktop. That would also go for any admin tool that monitors and reports health of web sites, server, etc. Oh here it comes...I can feel it: those kind of apps are holding it wrong.

You're argument is all over the place (as usual). If Windows 8 and the Metro approach is, as you say, only good for mobile devices, then it won't be any more of a problem for Windows RT tablets than it is for iPad users. If applications being suspended is as issue for such devices, then naturally it'll also make the iPad (which does the same) a complete failure too (hint: it wasn't) And if it's desktops you're worried about, then the spec of my current PC (which is a laptop) isn't exactly anything stellar, so it certainly won't be over the lifespan of W8. Nor is it necessarily a sign that it'll fail to work on a less capable device either, Notepad on this machine works just as well as it does on a ten-year old PC.

 

Who said apps suspending themselves was a bad thing in its entirety? Oh that's right you did. I'm not saying that non-active app suspension is a bad thing but for things like remote desktop there should be a exceptions. My issue with closing the app is around the usability of the Windows Store app task bar and task switching via swiping. Seems like the Windows team (along with the over cluttered start screen) is saying "How can we get in your way today?"

So I guess Sven must be using a 20 year old PC then. My bad. Also I'll just ignore the delay it takes for me to power up my W8 tablet from sleep and get to the app I want vs. doing the same on an Android or iPad too. C'mon Moore's Law...you can do it!!! (and before you put words in my mouth again let me clarify this sarcasm by saying that the startup times from cold boot or sleep on a W8 tablet are amazing -- just not as good as the competition.)

2 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

It's grey, it's got text on it telling you what it'll do, and when you click on it with the left mouse button it does something.

Doesn't matter what you call it, it's pretty button-y.

But it has two options. If it's a button then I think that'll confuse the user.

14 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

If the concern is that the "x" may be easily (not confusedly) selected then they could hide the "x" until the mouse hovers over the tile. Oh but that would go against the great Sinofsky who once said "Write for touch, F the mouse & keyboard".  I think that's what he said anyway.

Yes, that is the concern. And the absolute most ridiculous way to try and prevent it is to have that button be hidden until you mouse over where it is, because then you're almost certainly going to have the situation where someone moves the pointer over what looks like the switch target and has already clicked the button before realising the magic close button has suddenly appeared beneath their cursor and they've just quit the application they wanted to use.

Of course you could alleviate that problem by having the user explicitly right click with the mouse to make the close option appear...

*snip*

Um no... It's providing a quick route to a file I had recently created.

In what sense is that not file centric? And it still ignores the way Jump Lists are implemented, which is fundamentally around providing launch parameters to apps.

*snip*

I'd think that any type of terminal app would fall into the same category as remote desktop. That would also go for any admin tool that monitors and reports health of web sites, server, etc. Oh here it comes...I can feel it: those kind of apps are holding it wrong.

So that's a definitive "No." to the question, can you name anything other than a Remote Desktop (or equivalent) application then?

And yes I'm ignoring admin tools that monitor sites, because most of the widely used ones in existence (such as the excellent Nagios), are already implemented as web pages and so clearly capable of operating in an entirely connectionless fashion.

*snip*

Also I'll just ignore the delay it takes for me to power up my W8 tablet from sleep and get to the app I want vs. doing the same on an Android or iPad too.

I'm impressed you have W8 grade hardware, given that none has been released yet.

2 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Yes, that is the concern. And the absolute most ridiculous way to try and prevent it is to have that button be hidden until you mouse over where it is, because then you're almost certainly going to have the situation where someone moves the pointer over what looks like the switch target and has already clicked the button before realising the magic close button has suddenly appeared beneath their cursor and they've just quit the application they wanted to use.

It doesn't seem to have caused much of a problem with Windows 7's taskbar thumbnails, which show a close button when you hover over the tile.

55 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

It doesn't seem to have caused much of a problem with Windows 7's taskbar thumbnails, which show a close button when you hover over the tile.

The close button is a hard target there. It's too unsettling for me to position my mouse to click it, so I always use middle mouse button to close tabs there (which I believe also works to "close" apps in Win8 on the switcherbar).

1 hour ago, MasterPie wrote

*snip*

The close button is a hard target there. It's too unsettling for me to position my mouse to click it, so I always use middle mouse button to close tabs there (which I believe also works to "close" apps in Win8 on the switcherbar).

True, it is a small button, which would make AndyC's proposed problem even less of a concern.

13 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

I assume he was making the common mistake of confusing "virtual memory" with "swap file", which is so ubiquitous these days that it's rarely worth correcting. It's obviously possible to have virtual memory without page faults, Windows CE for example does it across the board (it doesn't even support swapping).

Speaking of terminology.... "swap" is incorrect, too.  There hasn't been a "swap file" in Windows since the 9x days.  The terms "swap" and "page" are also not synonymous in Windows like they are in Unix-based systems -- in Windows parlance, it refers to moving the entire contents of a program's data to a disk file.   In the pre-9x days, this was 386spart.par, and that file had to be contiguous on-disk and unchanging in size.  With the advent of 386 enhanced mode support in Windows 3.1, it became possible to also do temporary, page-based storage in win386.swp, which had much different operating mechanics from segment-based memory swapping.  Don't be fooled by the file name or the historical references, it's much more like pagefile.sys than 386spart.par.

13 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Yes, that is the concern. And the absolute most ridiculous way to try and prevent it is to have that button be hidden until you mouse over where it is, because then you're almost certainly going to have the situation where someone moves the pointer over what looks like the switch target and has already clicked the button before realising the magic close button has suddenly appeared beneath their cursor and they've just quit the application they wanted to use.

Of course you could alleviate that problem by having the user explicitly right click with the mouse to make the close option appear...

So you're going to give the Windows Store app IE guys a pass then huh? Nice.

I think the absolute most ridiculous way is to make things harder for the user under the guise that you are protecting them from a mistake.

The hidden charms & task bars and the way the "start button" behaves are no different in the element of "surprise" that you depict. "Every time I try and click on the damn start icon it disappears!" said Grandma before she keeled over from a W8 educed heart attack. 

I'd prefer the "x" was static (just like Windows Store app IE) but then you make up something else to whine about.

*snip*

In what sense is that not file centric? And it still ignores the way Jump Lists are implemented, which is fundamentally around providing launch parameters to apps.

Your working under the premise that an app centric world is the preferred. That premise is flawed. People want to get to their data as quick as they can and don't give a rat's arse if that's by opening the data from a menu from the shell or from within the application itself so long as it's the fastest. Of course you'll always prefer the apologist's position.

*snip*

So that's a definitive "No." to the question, can you name anything other than a Remote Desktop (or equivalent) application then?

And yes I'm ignoring admin tools that monitor sites, because most of the widely used ones in existence (such as the excellent Nagios), are already implemented as web pages and so clearly capable of operating in an entirely connectionless fashion.

With what -- only 2000 apps in the store? Maybe? Are you sure you want to go there? Looks like Citrix has a release out. I bet that's going have some pain points just like remote desktop. Can't wait for the others...

Come to think of it I have an app that would suck as a Windows Store app because of this very issue. It's an app that displays real-time weights from multiple scale heads. It's a WPF app that uses WCF with WSDualHttpBinding for communications providing both the real-time weight values from the scales and a control interface for the scales. The problem is that any time the user switch apps the connections would drop as the app was suspended. Like remote desktop the users of my app would have to wait for communications to be reestablished before they could do anything with the app. That's to bad too because of any of my apps this would be the best candidate for a Windows Store app port as it's written MVVM style and would work just fine full screen.

*snip*

I'm impressed you have W8 grade hardware, given that none has been released yet.

It's sad to see you make up lame excuse after lame excuse for Microsoft. You really think a full blown Windows Pro tablet is going to be so much more optimized than the Build tablet that it will meet or exceed the iPad or an Android tablet on startup times? From sleep even? Dude, put down the crack pipe. It's not helping you.

"W8 grade hardware". Sounds like you're calling Sinofsky a liar considering he said we'd have 450 million customer available to us as launch day -- you know those upgrading from "W7 grade hardware."

Hey I hear Apple is looking for a new PR guy for their mapping app. I think you'd be perfect for it. You can use me as a reference; you'll get nothing but high marks from me.

15 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

It doesn't seem to have caused much of a problem with Windows 7's taskbar thumbnails, which show a close button when you hover over the tile.

Try using those on a touch screen.

3 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

So you're going to give the Windows Store app IE guys a pass then huh? Nice.

I've already managed to accidentally close IE tabs instead of switching to them precisely because of this, it's a bit of UI I really don't like. I'd have gone for a more Semantic Zoom type approach, maybe arranging the pages like the old Quick Tabs functionality from IE8.

*snip*

Your working under the premise that an app centric world is the preferred. That premise is flawed. People want to get to their data as quick as they can and don't give a rat's arse if that's by opening the data from a menu from the shell or from within the application itself so long as it's the fastest. Of course you'll always prefer the apologist's position.

App-centric seems to be working rather well. It's been embraced by every smartphone, tablet etc ever since Apple proved it made life easier. Of course you think anyone who doesn't agree with you thinks there is something that needs apologising for.

*snip*

With what -- only 2000 apps in the store? Maybe? Are you sure you want to go there? Looks like Citrix has a release out. I bet that's going have some pain points just like remote desktop. Can't wait for the others...

I didn't say it had to be a store app. Could be anything.

Come to think of it I have an app that would suck as a Windows Store app because of this very issue. It's an app that displays real-time weights from multiple scale heads. It's a WPF app that uses WCF with WSDualHttpBinding for communications providing both the real-time weight values from the scales and a control interface for the scales.

Having an app that's not written in a way that's connectionless isn't the same thing as an app that can't be.

*snip*

It's sad to see you make up lame excuse after lame excuse for Microsoft. You really think a full blown Windows Pro tablet is going to be so much more optimized than the Build tablet that it will meet or exceed the iPad or an Android tablet on startup times? From sleep even? Dude, put down the crack pipe. It's not helping you.

I think Windows SoC devices (whether ARM or Intel) will be a lot more comparable to other SoC devices than traditional old-school PCs. I think the UEFI systems will startup faster than BIOS-based machines. And from sleep? Do you honestly think even current PC's have trouble resuming from sleep?

Do you honestly think the BUILD tablet was even nearly representative of the hardware that will be launched alongside Windows 8?

"W8 grade hardware". Sounds like you're calling Sinofsky a liar considering he said we'd have 450 million customer available to us as launch day -- you know those upgrading from "W7 grade hardware."

I think you should go listen to what Sinofsky actually said at BUILD. Or, you know, keep making stuff up that fits your argument better.

Hey I hear Apple is looking for a new PR guy for their mapping app. I think you'd be perfect for it. You can use me as a reference; you'll get nothing but high marks from me.

Nah, they need someone who lives in his own little world, ignores what most people want from computers and will endlessly shift arguments every time it becomes obvious what he says makes no sense.

I'll pop your reference in the post, then.

6 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Try using those on a touch screen.

I don't have a touch screen.

No compromises.

1 day ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

I've already managed to accidentally close IE tabs instead of switching to them precisely because of this, it's a bit of UI I really don't like. I'd have gone for a more Semantic Zoom type approach, maybe arranging the pages like the old Quick Tabs functionality from IE8.

 

You know they can't design a UI that protects idiots from every mistake they make.

I suppose you have that problem with the W7 taskbar thumbnails too. Do you run with scissors? Be careful!

App-centric seems to be working rather well. It's been embraced by every smartphone, tablet etc ever since Apple proved it made life easier. Of course you think anyone who doesn't agree with you thinks there is something that needs apologising for.

Actually I have no problem with supporting both application oriented and file oriented approaches. It's your uncompromising, myopic view of the world that creates this apologetic tone you pollute these forums with. If it's contrary to Microsoft's decision everyone but you must be holding it wrong.

You're also throwing out the notion (again) that desktop PCs will exist in this new world and if they do they won't have a mouse & keyboard. Devices like tablets and phones don't have the luxury of large screen sizes or mouse & keyboards so they need a simpler interface.

I didn't say it had to be a store app. Could be anything.

*snip*

Having an app that's not written in a way that's connectionless isn't the same thing as an app that can't be.

Sounds like you're inferring that any app that isn't connectionless is written wrong. Another "you're holding it wrong" response. Very clever.

I think Windows SoC devices (whether ARM or Intel) will be a lot more comparable to other SoC devices than traditional old-school PCs. I think the UEFI systems will startup faster than BIOS-based machines. And from sleep? Do you honestly think even current PC's have trouble resuming from sleep?

Do you honestly think the BUILD tablet was even nearly representative of the hardware that will be launched alongside Windows 8?

Current PC's having problems resuming from sleep? Say it isn't so! Oh yeah it is...

The iPad and Android tablets don't have this problem. Blame the bios, drivers, OEMs all you want but it'll still be Microsoft's burden to bear.

Comparing the build tablet to a recently announce Windows 8 tablet let's see what we have...

Looks pretty comparable to me including the UEFI support. Of course the Build tablet being a prototype is a beast in size and weight but that's not going to factor on startup time. The Atom processor in the ThinkPad make me a little nervous since we all know who well netbooks perform but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt because it's next-gen and dual core. So what are you willing to give here Andy?

I think you should go listen to what Sinofsky actually said at BUILD. Or, you know, keep making stuff up that fits your argument better.

I was there smart guy. That's how I got my tablet. Heard every word he said.

He may have said "Write for touch, get the mouse and keyboard for free" but coupled with the reality of what he meant by "no compromise" I think my sarcastic revision is closer to the truth.

Nah, they need someone who lives in his own little world, ignores what most people want from computers and will endlessly shift arguments every time it becomes obvious what he says makes no sense.

I'll pop your reference in the post, then.

So now you're down to "No you are!"  What next? Quotes from your momma? Desperate times Andy. Desperate times...

1 day ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

I don't have a touch screen.

No compromises.

Andy has an interesting sense of reality; one where the mouse and keyboard don't exist.

2 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

So now you're down to "No you are!"  What next? Quotes from your momma? Desperate times Andy. Desperate times...

Oh the terrible irony.

12 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

You know they can't design a UI that protects idiots from every mistake they make.

I suppose you have that problem with the W7 taskbar thumbnails too. Do you run with scissors? Be careful!

No, but that's probably because the mouse pointer is naturally very close to the thumbnail by the time it appears (because it had to hover over the button to trigger it). As a result you're typically making a shorter, slower movement and are thus more likely to accurately hit the correct target. By contrast the IE tabs or the W8 app list potentially require a much longer range movement and thus accurately targeting quickly becomes more difficult. You may have heard of this before, it's called Fitts Law.

*snip*

You're also throwing out the notion (again) that desktop PCs will exist in this new world and if they do they won't have a mouse & keyboard. Devices like tablets and phones don't have the luxury of large screen sizes or mouse & keyboards so they need a simpler interface.

Am I? Or did I explicitly state:

5 days ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

What you're missing is that if you were designing an OS from scratch today with absolutely no legacy cruft whatsoever, even if you went with a "desktop" style paradigm with overlapping windows etc, you still wouldn't design it in a way that requires users to "open" or "close" applications.

What you're ignoring is that just because you take an app-centric view or move the application lifecycle to one that is more system managed - it doesn't mean you have to give up a desktop environment. Nobody is (or at least nobody should) say that all future applications will exist in a Metro-like environment.

If you look at the last 15-20 years of OS development you'll see this is exactly the way everyone has been trying to go. It's precisely why the Apple Dock was created originally in a way that barely distinguished between running and non-running apps and why Apple at the time were often trying to explain the "with OS X you won't need to close apps" line (admittedly they someone pre-empted their OS being truly ready to take that approach. It's what things like Restart Manager and the OS X equivalent were meant to enable. Even your much loved Window 7 Taskbar is about blurring the distinction between launching and switching apps, albeit within the confines of what traditional Win32 apps could do.

The only way in which Metro represents a shift in thinking is that Microsoft have learnt the hard way that they simply can't introduce bits and pieces into the OS and expect apps to embrace them in the same way that Apple can. The amount of software out there today that supports Restart Manager, for example, is statistically insignificant - because the sheer weight of developers wanting legacy OS support steers them all away from using new features (no matter how many times the idea that apps can "light up" by using new functions on a new OS, it's just a bit too rare in reality). In contrast all the big OS X apps are first party, so new OS functionality gets embraced fast, which in turn pushes third party developers to keep up. The end result is taking a much bigger, more holistic approach to bringing Windows up to date and dragging developers along with it and focusing that effort on the sector of the developer market (that which is predominantly consumer focused and thus carries less back-compat baggage).

*snip*

Sounds like you're inferring that any app that isn't connectionless is written wrong. Another "you're holding it wrong" response. Very clever.

It's not "wrong", it's just dated. There are many good reasons that moving in favour of a RESTful approach is preferred these days, the fact that such designs work better in suspend/resume scenarios is by no means the biggest.

*snip*

Current PC's having problems resuming from sleep? Say it isn't so! Oh yeah it is...

Oooh look, the goalposts move again. What do driver and hardware issues that cause resume to fail have to do with the speed by which a working PC can resume?

The Atom processor in the ThinkPad make me a little nervous since we all know who well netbooks perform but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt because it's next-gen and dual core. So what are you willing to give here Andy?

Clover Trail is the Intel SoC design. It may use x86 instructions, but otherwise it's a lot closer to the ARM chips you'll find in iPads and Android tablets. SoC, aside from supporting newer power modes like "connected standby" are far easier to handle from a driver PoV, because there is obviously a lot less variation in the support hardware than in a traditional PC.

*snip*

I was there smart guy. That's how I got my tablet. Heard every word he said

Hearing != Listening.

*snip*

Andy has an interesting sense of reality; one where the mouse and keyboard don't exist.

Au contraire, I fully expect mouse and keyboard to be used for a very long time.

9 hours ago, Bas wrote

*snip*

Oh the terrible irony.

34 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

No, but that's probably because the mouse pointer is naturally very close to the thumbnail by the time it appears (because it had to hover over the button to trigger it). As a result you're typically making a shorter, slower movement and are thus more likely to accurately hit the correct target. By contrast the IE tabs or the W8 app list potentially require a much longer range movement and thus accurately targeting quickly becomes more difficult. You may have heard of this before, it's called Fitts Law.

The Windows 8 App list requires you to put the mouse in the top left corner and then move it vertically along the left edge of the screen to activate. It would be nowhere near the close button of the thumbnails.

Also thumbnails have much more vertical room in which you can't accidentally click a close button, as opposed to tabs.

PS: I noticed that Windows 8 App Store App Internet Explorer 10 has permanently displayed close buttons on its thumbnail shaped tabs. 

Hmmm... Or they could just make the thumbnails bigger. Maybe make the panel scrollable. You might have heard of this before, it's called Common Sense.

*snip*

Am I? Or did I explicitly state:

"

5 days ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

What you're missing is that if you were designing an OS from scratch today with absolutely no legacy cruft whatsoever, even if you went with a "desktop" style paradigm with overlapping windows etc, you still wouldn't design it in a way that requires users to "open" or "close" applications.

"

No mention of mouse and keyboard there either. Next...

*snip*

What you're ignoring is that just because you take an app-centric view or move the application lifecycle to one that is more system managed - it doesn't mean you have to give up a desktop environment. Nobody is (or at least nobody should) say that all future applications will exist in a Metro-like environment.

No they just kill the development of APIs used to make the vast majority of desktop apps. It's a sure sign that the desktop is going to be well supported in the future.

 If you look at the last 15-20 years of OS development you'll see this is exactly the way everyone has been trying to go. It's precisely why the Apple Dock was created originally in a way that barely distinguished between running and non-running apps and why Apple at the time were often trying to explain the "with OS X you won't need to close apps" line (admittedly they someone pre-empted their OS being truly ready to take that approach. It's what things like Restart Manager and the OS X equivalent were meant to enable. Even your much loved Window 7 Taskbar is about blurring the distinction between launching and switching apps, albeit within the confines of what traditional Win32 apps could do.

I know this is quite a stretch but could Apple's Dock and W7's task bar just be better ways that user can launch to their favorite applications and documents quicker? You know without going through some heinous list of applications or sea of tiles? Maybe also forgoing the laborious chore of having to type the name of the application or document? – if you can remember what the name is. And perhaps a simple way of seeing what you have running without having to step outside the context you are working – you know beyond a crippled task list that is nothing more than an MRU list limited to your vertical screen space? Oh and just maybe a way to close applications and documents that are providing clutter to your active operating environment?

The only way in which Metro represents a shift in thinking is that Microsoft have learnt the hard way that they simply can't introduce bits and pieces into the OS and expect apps to embrace them in the same way that Apple can. The amount of software out there today that supports Restart Manager, for example, is statistically insignificant - because the sheer weight of developers wanting legacy OS support steers them all away from using new features (no matter how many times the idea that apps can "light up" by using new functions on a new OS, it's just a bit too rare in reality). In contrast all the big OS X apps are first party, so new OS functionality gets embraced fast, which in turn pushes third party developers to keep up. The end result is taking a much bigger, more holistic approach to bringing Windows up to date and dragging developers along with it and focusing that effort on the sector of the developer market (that which is predominantly consumer focused and thus carries less back-compat baggage).

And there it is... "dragging developers along". Having us spend the last 4 or 5 years coming up to speed with WPF and SL only to drag us on to the next thing. Now that's how you build good developer relations and make us heroes to our customers who have forked over hundreds of thousands of dollars for a "modern" app! I'm glad you're ok with that. I always thought you build something that was better and people naturally gravitate to it; kinda like Android....

It's not "wrong", it's just dated. There are many good reasons that moving in favour of a RESTful approach is preferred these days, the fact that such designs work better in suspend/resume scenarios is by no means the biggest.

Dated? Really? I guess you haven't worked in too many scenarios where the cost of the connection is too high for the frequency of data updates. Of course users don't need buttery smooth and accurate HMIs... They can live with less.

Oooh look, the goalposts move again. What do driver and hardware issues that cause resume to fail have to do with the speed by which a working PC can resume?

Well you did say "Do you honestly think even current PC's have trouble resuming from sleep?" If that's not trouble I don't know what is.

Clover Trail is the Intel SoC design. It may use x86 instructions, but otherwise it's a lot closer to the ARM chips you'll find in iPads and Android tablets. SoC, aside from supporting newer power modes like "connected standby" are far easier to handle from a driver PoV, because there is obviously a lot less variation in the support hardware than in a traditional PC.

Oh Andy I'm so very glad you've come to your senses and agree that the Build tablet is closer in performance to "W8 grade" hardware than you originally gave credit.

I sure hope that those SoC don't SuC too bad after their quick resume from sleep. Seems like a compromise to me...

Hearing != Listening.

Here's one that I don't prescribe to but you might better relate: Ignorance == Bliss

It won't compile but don't let that stop ya.

 Windows 8 App Store App Internet Explorer 10

Don't you mean Internet Explorer 10 in the the new Windows UI?

22 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

The Windows 8 App list requires you to put the mouse in the top left corner and then move it vertically along the left edge of the screen to activate. It would be nowhere near the close button of the thumbnails.

With a large display there is quite a bit of scope for mouse travel sideways if you're aiming near the bottom of the list. And it's much worse with touch because aiming is a lot less precise, particularly if you're stretching your finger to reach one of the more extreme ends of the list. Ironically the IE tabs suffer less here because you've pretty much got to take your hand away from it's natural position in order to click them.

PS: I noticed that Windows 8 App Store App Internet Explorer 10 has permanently displayed close buttons on its thumbnail shaped tabs. 

Yeah, those I the ones I've already got annoyed by hitting occasionally when use the trackpad on my laptop, because in that case you right-click somewhere and then make a (potentially) large mouse movement to hit the tab. It's probably not quite as bad if you've got a mouse plugged in, but trackpads have never been nearly as easy to be precise with as a mouse (despite Windows treating them identically).

57 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

With a large display there is quite a bit of scope for mouse travel sideways if you're aiming near the bottom of the list. 

*snip*

There's also infinite screen width courtesy of Fitts' Law if you keep the mouse against the edge of the screen.

As for the rest, making close buttons only appear for the mouse would solve the fat finger problems from touch use.

51 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

There's also infinite screen width courtesy of Fitts' Law if you keep the mouse against the edge of the screen.

As for the rest, making close buttons only appear for the mouse would solve the fat finger problems from touch use.

But your mouse starts against the edge of the screen, so any unintended travel is naturally going to be away from the edge, so you can't really rely on Fitts to help.

I'm also not convinced that you having close buttons appear/disappear depending on what input device your using would work particularly well in practice either. Aside from being potentially confusing, it starts to introduce oddities with differing input devices (Should a stylus act more like a mouse or touch? What about Kinect? What about a mouse that supports Touch gestures?)

• Stylus: acts like a mouse today, high precision -- show "x"
• Kinect: low precision -- don't show "x" (Pretty disingenuous of you to throw this in your list of "concerns")
• Mouse with touch: high precision & low precision -- show "x" if the bar is brought up with the mouse, don't show the "x" if the menu is brought up by touch.

The W8 desktop taskbar already implements this differentiating between mouse, pen, and touch currently. When touch is being used it displays the "x" for all thumbnails. The only change required would be to avoid the latter when touch is in use -- you know to avoid accidental closures by Microsoft apologists.

And let's not forget that the W8 desktop taskbar can be oriented vertically on the left or right side of the screen...

13 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

The only thing confused here is you Andy.

• Stylus: acts like a mouse today, high precision -- show "x"
• Kinect: low precision -- don't show "x" (Pretty disingenuous of you to throw this in your list of "concerns")
• Mouse with touch: high precision & low precision -- show "x" if the bar is brought up with the mouse, don't show the "x" if the menu is brought up by touch.

You see, you're missing the subtleties. Let's say I'm holding a tablet in my left hand and using the stylus in my right. I swipe from the corner to bring up the switch list and want to swap to an app in the list near to where my left hand is resting. It's much, much easier to use my thumb to click than to contort your arms to do it with the stylus. Except now you've put these close buttons there and we're back to accidental closures. And that's assuming you're using a tablet-style direct-to-display stylus, as opposed to a separate desktop one where there is a visual disconnect - you're now forcing the user to employ a degree of accuracy otherwise unnecessary to switch tasks (the Taskbar doesn't do that, for example)

Similarly with the mouse with touch, the whole point is to allow quick gestures which can bring up system or app UI, but your hand is still on the mouse and you still might want to use that to actually point/select. Except now you've made the close function you wanted more accessible disappear, so the user either has to give up the touch gestures or go back to the right-click menu that is apparently too difficult. More exotic devices like Kinect only increase the number of UI combinations, none of which are necessarily going to be used in isolation any more than you'd use the mouse in isolation from the keyboard.

The W8 desktop taskbar already implements this differentiating between mouse, pen, and touch currently. When touch is being used it displays the "x" for all thumbnails. The only change required would be to avoid the latter when touch is in use -- you know to avoid accidental closures by Microsoft apologists.

And it just doesn't do it well. Trying to fudge touch support onto a UI designed wholly around the idea of being mouse driven is inevitably going to fail. That's kind of the whole reason why Windows 7 touch devices aren't ubiquitous already. It's why Steven Sinofsky said in the Building 8 blog all those months ago: "Going back to even the first public demonstrations of Windows 7, we worked hard on touch, but our approach to implementing touch as just an adjunct to existing Windows desktop software didn't work very well. Adding touch on top of UI paradigms designed for mouse and keyboard held the experience back."

And let's not forget that the W8 desktop taskbar can be oriented vertically on the left or right side of the screen...

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make with that.

2 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

But your mouse starts against the edge of the screen, so any unintended travel is naturally going to be away from the edge, so you can't really rely on Fitts to help.

I'm also not convinced that you having close buttons appear/disappear depending on what input device your using would work particularly well in practice either. Aside from being potentially confusing, it starts to introduce oddities with differing input devices (Should a stylus act more like a mouse or touch? What about Kinect? What about a mouse that supports Touch gestures?)

I don't know. Keeping the mouse against the edge seemed pretty natural to me. And you can't even leave the edge until the mouse gets about 1.5 thumbnails down the list or the list won't activate. By then your trajectory is most decidedly down.

1 minute ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

You see, you're missing the subtleties. Let's say I'm holding a tablet in my left hand and using the stylus in my right. I swipe from the corner to bring up the switch list and want to swap to an app in the list near to where my left hand is resting. It's much, much easier to use my thumb to click than to contort your arms to do it with the stylus. Except now you've put these close buttons there and we're back to accidental closures. And that's assuming you're using a tablet-style direct-to-display stylus, as opposed to a separate desktop one where there is a visual disconnect - you're now forcing the user to employ a degree of accuracy otherwise unnecessary to switch tasks (the Taskbar doesn't do that, for example)

The close buttons wouldn't be present since you invoked the menu with touch instead of the stylus. The only person "forcing" the user to do anything here is you.  It's about options. I've got a Wacom Bamboo and I'd never use it as a substitute for a mouse. And you claim I move the goalposts?

Similarly with the mouse with touch, the whole point is to allow quick gestures which can bring up system or app UI, but your hand is still on the mouse and you still might want to use that to actually point/select. Except now you've made the close function you wanted more accessible disappear, so the user either has to give up the touch gestures or go back to the right-click menu that is apparently too difficult. More exotic devices like Kinect only increase the number of UI combinations, none of which are necessarily going to be used in isolation any more than you'd use the mouse in isolation from the keyboard.

Can you rub your head and belly at the same time too? Many can't. Same goes for using touch features on a mouse while you're moving it. The "x" appears based on what input mode invoked the taskbar. End of story. Kinect again is a non-issue as it doesn't cause the "x" to be presented since it's treated the same as touch.

And it just doesn't do it well. Trying to fudge touch support onto a UI designed wholly around the idea of being mouse driven is inevitably going to fail. That's kind of the whole reason why Windows 7 touch devices aren't ubiquitous already. It's why Steven Sinofsky said in the Building 8 blog all those months ago: "Going back to even the first public demonstrations of Windows 7, we worked hard on touch, but our approach to implementing touch as just an adjunct to existing Windows desktop software didn't work very well. Adding touch on top of UI paradigms designed for mouse and keyboard held the experience back."

So you take a wholly general statement and throw out absolutely everything they did on the desktop for touch and the improvements they have made to it in W8. Better tell that to the Office team being they are hell bent on making Office more touch friendly on the desktop.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make with that.

Just trying to pre-empt any Fitts law excuses you have about the difference in orientation between the W8 task bars...

Let's throw down a few more asinine use-cases shall we?

My mouse with touch has low battery. It only has enough juice to power the touchpad. Should the "x" be displayed?

I'm in the bathroom on the toilet with my tablet in my left hand and my stylus in my right. What hand do I wipe with and which do I swipe with? And where should I put the stylus? Maybe we should invoke Shitts Law here...

I just picked my nose increasing the surface area of my touch point. According to Fitts law the thumbnails are now too small to accurately hit. Should they scale based on touch point size? Keep in mind I'm looking at pr0n so my other hand is busy...