...and the public's reaction to Windows 8...
Well, from here (just substitute "Metro" for "WT7"):Yes you touched on the idea I'm talking about. The "shell" would provide an alternative environment for WP7-like apps to run in. In this environment, the idea is not to emulate the phone, hence the typical phone buttons and fixed screen resolution are not required. Instead, these apps can take advantage of the larger screen size etc.
So the idea is, someone is creating a WP7 app. Within VS, there is an option to also target this "WT7" framework. If the developer chooses this option, they then get two projects that basically use the same source code. The WP7 project is specifically running on the WP7 emulator or WP7 hardware. The "WT7" version runs as a fullscreen app that can take advantage of the higher resolution etc. Yet 99% of the source code is the same. There could be runtime or compile time flags that the developer can use to determine which platform it is actually running on at the time, in cases where different code paths are required, but other than handling different resolutions and availability of various hardware features (no GPS on "WT7" version, hardware keyboard on "WT7" version), the code will be mostly the same.
From a consumer pov, the way it works is like this: They run the "WT7" shell, which is a fullscreen application. They don't see the same UI as WP7 (no tiles, no phone features etc). There will be icons for installed apps. There will also be a button to go to the app store. When they go to the app store, they can search and browse apps, just like you would be able to do from a WP7 phone. Except in this case, apps that are WP7-only will be filtered out. Apps that support both WP7 and WT7 (or only WT7) will be listed. The install/uninstall mechanism is the same as it is for WP7 - in other words - simple.
An additional feature could be that WP7-only apps could also be allowed to run in this shell, but in that case the fixed resolution and hardware buttons will be emulated. But this is not the main idea behind this. This could be a nice way for 175 million Windows 7 users to try out WP7 apps though, even if they don't already have a WP7 device.
Some of the big advantages of this is that, if WP7 is popular, and many apps are developed, this opens up these apps for Windows tablets to use as well (and any touch-enabled PC). In addition, you immediately create a much larger installed base of consumers that could buy apps from the app store, making it more attractive for developers. How many copies of Windows 7 were sold again? OK, only a small percentage of these have touch screens, but apps can be developed so that they can work with a "single touch" as well (mouse) or with the hardware keyboard.
I don't know, to me it seems like something like this could be worth it.
@evildictaitor: The Windows 8 desktop is not even close to being identical to the Windows 7 desktop. That's the part that confuses me when people keep saying that. To name a few... Start menu removed, the way to manage the computer (things like selecting network connections), the way you do searches, the way you power it off, the way the dialogs work (like the Windows 8.1 upgrade nag dialog), the roundabout way you now have to use to get to various areas of the OS, the way the hot corners get in the way when moving the mouse between multiple monitors. And that is just scratching the surface.
Half of those involve being whisked off to the Metro Start Screen. So claiming...Given how it's 99.9999% identical I find it baffling that people can get so emotional over the 0.000001% change from translucent to opaque and rounded-corners to sharp.
...now that is hyperbole. There are many more changes than simply transparency changes and squared off corners that you have to deal with when you are working with desktop applications.
EDIT: I'm not saying any of those things I mentioned are problems per se, just that it is nowhere near identical to Windows 7.
I just remembered this thread that I posted before Windows 8 with the Metro UI was announced. It is essentially proposing the Metro UI as the primary UI for tablets and secondary UI for desktops so that you can share the same apps on the desktop and phone/tablet. So I've never been against Metro at all and thought something like it would be great as a combined mobile/desktop strategy.
I find the comments in that thread interesting.
OK fair enough, I won't use that term again. I know exactly what context I used it in at the time since in my mind I've never considered Windows 8 to actually be unusable. However I guess with the multiple meanings people can decide to choose whichever one they think I meant.
BTW, I've admitted many times before that I'm an MS fanboy, and you can dig up many older posts where I'm very pro-MS. At least in my mind, this new UI direction is a mistake, and I guess I hate the idea that MS could be making a big mistake like this when the alternatives are getting more viable every day. I think this is a bad time to be experimenting with a dramatically different and untested UI. Why the heavy-handed approach to the desktop when the Metro UI can peacefully co-exist with the way the desktop used to work before? I don't get that part. First try it out and see if people accept it. Then move everyone over to it. Not the other way around.
You know what makes this funny is the fact that one of major complaints against the Aero Glass interface was that it was too hard to see which window was active...
I think the Windows 8 window borders are pretty ugly, but from a usability perspective I prefer them over glass. And then there's the multi-monitor taskbar, the new file copy dialog, the massively improved task manager, the changes to explorer (I'm not a huge fan of the ribbon in this case but it doesn't bother me, and I am a huge fan of "Open Windows PowerShell"), per-monitor DPI and various other changes that to me have made the desktop experience in Windows 8.1 actually better than it was in Windows 7.
And while I don't really use metro apps on my desktop, I do like the live tiles of the start screen, and the all apps view in 8.1 is much better than the cascading start menu. There's only three things I miss from the old start menu: the MRU list, jump lists, and the computer/documents/music etc. shortcuts. That last one I've worked around by pinning those things to an Explorer icon pinned to my taskbar, so that's not really an issue anymore. I would like to have a non-fullscreen start screen, but I've gotten used to the way it is now.
So that leaves really only two things I don't like vs. quite a few things that I do. I don't know what your definition of FUBAR is but it appears to be different from mine.
FUBAR to me implies "completely unusable by anybody, unrecognizable as the thing it's supposed to be, and non-functional at a fundamental level". You cannot simultaneously claim it's not completely unusable and that it's FUBAR.
I have already agreed much earlier that there are good stuff in Windows 8 compared to Windows 7. So most of what you say I agree with.
If we are going to argue semantics... Depending on where you look, the definition of FUBAR can mean "F**ed Up Beyond Any Recognition/Repair/Reason". In the context I used it, "recognition" is the most applicable so it is specific to the cosmetics. Which is very applicable to my point I was making.
No, the only thing that matters is what I actually did say, not what you pretend I did say. I never once said it is unusable. Where? I asked previously where I said that and you still can't tell me. Please provide the exact quote where I said that, or else stop acting as if I did say it.This is not a murder trial, and mens rea doesn't come into play. If it isn't unusable, then don't use the word at all.
Except I didn't! LOL. Once again you must be confusing what I said MS was trying to do (in an effort to push users towards the Metro UI). How you can possibly confuse those two things is beyond me.It's just bluster and hyperbole.
Going around in circles here. It is getting tiresome. Stop acting as if I ever claimed this is the only problem or even a big problem. I said it was one of the problems.If you're going to make a strong claim like "Windows 8 is FUBAR", then back your claims up with more than a list consisting of EXACLTY ONE annoyance that you have to deal with "every now and again" and isn't a "big deal". Come out and say it instead of hiding behind "Oh, you're putting words in my mouth!" Otherwise, quit the * hyperbole.
I already said the start menu is a problem. Volumes have been written by many people regarding the problems they have with that. Since I already said that it was also one of my problems, do we really need to rehash that argument here again? That by itself adds a big reason why I don't like Windows 8 and so again please try and refrain from acting as if the flat theme issue I mentioned is the one and only issue I have.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm mocking the idea of making such a huge stink out of something so small. Whether it's a step at all is arguable, but you're acting as if it's a huge step backward. If you're disputing that you are claiming it's a huge step backward, then say so.
Yep, you are putting words in my mouth, and please stop doing it. I'm tired of endlessly correcting you. You seem to ignore the fact that I repeatedly said this is not a big issue, however it is just one of many examples of Windows 8 annoyances. When you add them all up, it does start becoming a bigger issue. I don't know how much clearer I can state that for you to stop ignoring that fact.It's either unusable or it isn't. You're pregnant or you're not. Did Microsoft accomplish what they're "trying"? Is Windows 8 unusable or is it usable?
You might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that you are mixing two things together and then once again putting words in my mouth. Claiming MS is trying to do something and what my actual experience is, is not the same thing. I never once claimed it actually is unusable so stop acting like I did. It really is getting tiring to argue with someone that makes stuff up constantly.
[I can't get the "Insert Video" feature to work. Anyone else see problems embedding a video?]
Yea I kinda miss those days. Even "electronic" projects these days mostly consist of a microcontroller, plug-in interface boards and writing software to control it. Which is still useful but people these days don't get down and dirty with transistors like we used to.
Interesting to hear there are still some people that play around with the "old-school" components.
BTW have you looked into circuit simulators? I haven't looked at those in a long time but I imagine they should be really good by now. I used PSpice and Micro-Cap. The good thing about those is that you can experiment with a huge library of electronic components and never actually fry anything :)