Here are the system requirements.
1) Energy production must be reliable.
2) Energy production must be controllable based on hourly demands.
3) Energy production must meets the current demand and 10 years down the road because they have to give themselves enough time to make more power plants, which takes years.
1) Energy source does not rely on foreign resources to avoid price hike.
2) Provide more jobs to the people.
3) Cost effective.
4) Environmental friendly.
Until the requirements are met, or have been met by existing power plants, the optional suggestions are pointless. And as you can see, I ranked Environmental friendly the lowest.
Here are the system requirements.
VS2008 is fucked up with high DPI setting. The property window is fucked up. The intellisense poping up no where near the code. The Windows Live messenger is basically not operational with high DPI Settings.
A lot of the problem is that, high DPI doesn't scale images and layout. It only blow up text. It is a mess. WPF works perfectly of course. The downside of course, is that it also scales pictures. For photo gallery, displaying one picture, it scales up and a bit more blurry. And from my experience, it is not that easy to get around with it, unless you resize the media element instead using auto size the element.
People increase DPI for many reasons. I for one, just want things big. I buy 27inchs 1080p monitor, to make sure I have bigger pixels. And then, set the DPI to 125%, so I can get even bigger stuff without crippling the crappy legacy apps too much. I did not set DPI for dimension accuracy. I set it bigger so I can read easier and text isn't blurry mess.
And of course, the old way is to lower resolution all together, but, LCD tends to have crappy upscaler, so everything is darker. Hence, higher DPI setting is the recommended way.
And then, there are basically fucked up web pages. For a long time, MS love tiny fonts on their website. I have to zoom 150% to begin comfortably reading the page. It was a awful time period. And during that time, the zoom isn't the same as now. It was pretty bad back then.
I think the terrible part is. MS complained about apps not doing things correctly. They put out the guideline. But, the VS2008 and WL messenger failed miserably. It was hard to demand other devs doing it right when themselves failed as well.
And I don't see why you MUST FORCE user to ONLY use Start Screen in a new product line.
@magicalclick: You can't just say that Siri is equivalent to the Start Screen. Many people don't generally want to have to speak in order to get their phone to do something. That's one reason we use texting, so we don't have to disturb others while having a conversation. But, having it as an option in some contexts (such as driving) makes it a useful addition.
I didn't say Metro was a mistake. I said the opposite, that Metro was absolutely needed for Microsoft's strategy to not become irrelevant in the consumer market. My point was that the marketing was bad, calling it Windows 8 as if it were in the same class of product as Windows 7 made business/professional people think that Microsoft was putting out a product meant for them... when it clearly was a product meant for tablets.
Let me repeat what I said again.
1) The marketing is NOT bad.
2) Calling it Windows8 IS GREAT decision.
3) Calling it Windows8 is much much much much better decision than whatever you want to name.
4) Metro can be promoted like hell just as how Apple prompt Siri without existing user base screaming and not buying the product.
No, you twisted the meaning of front and center. Prove to me how Siri is anything less emphasized by Apple compare to Win8 Start Screen campaign. The point of all marketing is to design a cool feature, promote a hell out of it, and help user adoption. And prove to me how Siri is not a good marketing because it didn't overtook the main interface. Show me why can't Start Screen be promoted just like how Apple promote Siri.
There is nothing wrong with making Metro part of Windows. NOTHING. Just there is nothing wrong to have Siri as part of iOS and not replacing the existing interface. MS CAN promote just as much for Start Screen without forcing user to adopt.
You kept acting like making Metro as part of Windows is a mistake. And I am here to tell you that making Metro as part of Windows is much better decision. And you want to promote Start Screen, yes, they CAN promote Start Screen like hell without removing Start Menu.
So in the end, Threshold HAS Start Screen like I said and it would still be front and center if they market just like how Apple put Siri front and center in their marketing campaign. I still don't see how there is anything lacking in making Metro part of Windows.
Btw, sorry for detailing the topic, but, I bet TC is assumed anyway. I am getting a vibe that, When Apple puts Siri in the center of attention in iPhone, the crowd here somehow demanded Apple should have removed the main page and must access everything through Siri. Of course that's my vibe from this thread so far. Yes, ridiculous, but, I couldn't understand why can't Start Screen be advertised as Front and Center just like how Apple marketed Siri? I am confused.