Author Topic: Yay or Nay? The Windows 8 Metro Interface (Read 7263 times)

Freedom Kira · « **Reply #180 on:** November 23, 2012, 06:49:29 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on November 22, 2012, 01:51:16 PM

Also, Zenbook? Too big to put in a pocket losing the portability contest with a smartphone and too shitty hardware to be compared to proper computers.

The Zenbook is in the "Ultrabook" class. It was not meant to compete either with smartphones or "proper computers," which I will assume refer to conventional laptop and desktop computers. It was designed to compete with other ultrabooks - i.e. super portable laptops that are extremely light and quiet (no fans) while also relatively fast and responsive. In that field, it does extremely well.

surdumil · « **Reply #181 on:** November 23, 2012, 04:03:06 PM »

Call me when the colour touch-sensitive e-paper super-computer with surround sound comes out. 'Til then, it's just same old same old.

A user interface for tiny touch-screens has no place on a 27" monitor. It's just bad!

mgz · « **Reply #182 on:** November 23, 2012, 07:26:42 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on November 22, 2012, 01:51:16 PM

Quote from: Pagonis on November 21, 2012, 05:01:16 AM
Eh? Hardware manufacturers are indeed not delivering inspiring hardware. Same old boring stagnation.
Last couple years, only Asus made something more inspiring - ZenBook. And ZenBook is just following forced guidelines by a fucking CPU manufactorer - Intel. Really, how pathetic is that?

Really? I know that CPU development is a bit slowed down because they pretty much have to use new materials to really increase performance, but graphic card developments have been really cool for the last few years. SSDs are now becoming mature and have accessible price.

Also, Zenbook? Too big to put in a pocket losing the portability contest with a smartphone and too shitty hardware to be compared to proper computers. In fact tablets suffer from the same problem. No, inspiring hardware can come in many different formats, but smearing your greasy fingers over a glossy screen on a weak computer is not one of them in my opinion and that is pretty much the only thing that Microsoft is hinting at. They made one single major alteration to windows 8 over the predecessor and it is touch screen UI. There is nothing inspiring about putting touch screens on all kind of computers.

i personally would loveto see the interactive no touch screen interfaces that function like touch screen from a distance. Once that is implemented more in desktops it will be great for shit like win 8

AceHigh · « **Reply #183 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:42:56 PM »

Ah the hologram interface like in "minority report".

kitamesume · « **Reply #184 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:16:20 AM »

doesn't google TV supports that feature already?

Burkingam · « **Reply #185 on:** November 25, 2012, 01:33:31 PM »

Hi, can anybody tell me if windows 8 comes with Windows Live Mail by default or does it only come with the "Mail" crap which doesn't allow manual POP configurations? Thanks.

mgz · « **Reply #186 on:** November 27, 2012, 11:31:46 AM »

Quote from: kitamesume on November 25, 2012, 12:16:20 AM

doesn't google TV supports that feature already?

they are just starting support for this kind of stuff i mean once the technology is fluid and not laggy. Where you can actually use it functionally on the regs instead of just a catchy gimmick which is pretty much is now.

Apply functionality like in minority report with windows 8 and you would see just how cool it might be. Until then fuck off microsoft brand that shit as windows touch

iindigo · « **Reply #187 on:** December 04, 2012, 12:46:58 AM »

Quote from: surdumil on November 23, 2012, 04:03:06 PM

A user interface for tiny touch-screens has no place on a 27" monitor. It's just bad!

Well said. I tried using Windows 8 (in a virtual machine, of course) and it took no time at all before the 2560x1440 start screen smacking me in the face constantly started getting old. I installed ClassicShell to fix it.

occasional · « **Reply #188 on:** December 04, 2012, 05:19:34 PM »

Just upgraded to Windows 8 (for free thanks to Microsoft's typical ineptitude, hehehe).
I think it's awesome. Very intuitive and quicker than Windows 7. I don't see what people are complaining about. Probably not going to use Metro much though.

megido-rev.M · « **Reply #189 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:35:55 AM »

Many complaints are basically on the stuff they actually attempt to feature, but improved tech goes without saying.

kitamesume · « **Reply #190 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:37:43 AM »

its because the feature transition was way too aggressive this time around, like hey windows xp to windows 7 didn't have much complains about aero or rather had quite a number of praises.

megido-rev.M · « **Reply #191 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:47:30 AM »

That's right, and XP to 7 is a huge improvement in almost every way I could compare the UIs

.

zherok · « **Reply #192 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:52:13 AM »

They introduced Aero with Vista though. I imagine the increased performance requirement probably factored in some of the complaints against it. And likely continued to be a factor with all those people unable to let go of XP even after 7 came out.

As far as too aggressive is concerned, couldn't the same argument have been used going from 3.11 to 95? People are going to cling desperately to whatever old system they're used to no matter how slow you go, but sometimes you need to shake things up rather than introduce new features at a glacial pace. I dunno if Metro is it, but it was a pretty big leap going from program groups to a start menu.

megido-rev.M · « **Reply #193 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:07:49 AM »

Quote from: zherok on December 16, 2012, 04:52:13 AM

They introduced Aero with Vista though. I imagine the increased performance requirement probably factored in some of the complaints against it.

It was definitely one of the issues at the time.

kitamesume · « **Reply #194 on:** December 16, 2012, 07:19:20 AM »

vista's aero was like a half-baked cookie, it wasn't delicious at all.
i don't know if you can disable aero in vista but in win7 it can, also win7 when stripped of it's features is lighter and a tad more responsive than xp.

Quote from: zherok on December 16, 2012, 04:52:13 AM

As far as too aggressive is concerned, couldn't the same argument have been used going from 3.11 to 95? People are going to cling desperately to whatever old system they're used to no matter how slow you go, but sometimes you need to shake things up rather than introduce new features at a glacial pace. I dunno if Metro is it, but it was a pretty big leap going from program groups to a start menu.

if i remember correctly 3.11 was purely DOS right? 95 still has a DOS emulator which kind of amended the hate from the transition. the thing that made windows8's UI hate-able

Bob2004 · « **Reply #195 on:** December 16, 2012, 02:38:41 PM »

Quote from: kitamesume on December 16, 2012, 07:19:20 AM

vista's aero was like a half-baked cookie, it wasn't delicious at all.
i don't know if you can disable aero in vista but in win7 it can, also win7 when stripped of it's features is lighter and a tad more responsive than xp.

Aero is pretty much the same in both Vista and 7 in terms of functionality (and yes, it can be disabled in both). The main difference is that they optimised it quite significantly in Windows 7, so it's no longer such a resource hog (although it was hardly the most resource-intensive part of Vista, either).

Quote

Quote from: zherok on December 16, 2012, 04:52:13 AM
As far as too aggressive is concerned, couldn't the same argument have been used going from 3.11 to 95? People are going to cling desperately to whatever old system they're used to no matter how slow you go, but sometimes you need to shake things up rather than introduce new features at a glacial pace. I dunno if Metro is it, but it was a pretty big leap going from program groups to a start menu.
if i remember correctly 3.11 was purely DOS right? 95 still has a DOS emulator which kind of amended the hate from the transition. the thing that made windows8's UI hate-able

Windows 95's big change wasn't related to DOS - you could still run DOS programs from Windows 95 just as easily as from 3.1, and it still came with DOS installed, so you could easily switch to the full DOS OS if you wanted to. The big change in Windows 95 was adding the start menu. It was very different to the old system of program groups, which is why some people were concerned when it was announced, but IIRC once it was released, most criticism dried up right away because it was such a big improvement. Unlike the new Windows 8 interface, which is considered by many to not be better; hence the ongoing criticism post-release.

kitamesume · « **Reply #196 on:** December 16, 2012, 03:41:02 PM »

odd the 2nd part of my post was cut off after "hate-able"...

well the continuation of it is -

the thing that made windows8's UI hate-able is it's not obvious(if its available at all) toggle-off metro, if they made it pretty obvious and turning off metro causes it to fallback to goo'old startmenu then we'd see less hate right now.

Tatsujin · « **Reply #197 on:** December 21, 2012, 08:52:10 PM »

Tried Windows 8 on a laptop we purchased (Core i3 Ivy Bridge), half the things I usually know where they go are like ... not there. My 11 year old sister showed me the things I usually go in when I set up a new computer. I'd probably wait until the first service pack is out then I'll purchase it. It's a good operating system, so far.

Mirgond · « **Reply #198 on:** December 21, 2012, 08:52:55 PM »

First Service Pack will be Windows 9

MS announced that they will switch to a yearly release cycle like Apple.

megido-rev.M · « **Reply #199 on:** December 22, 2012, 02:06:47 AM »

That's pretty lame.