OK, I didn't understand what you meant.
OK, I didn't understand what you meant.
Way back when Windows 95 introduced the Start button, I saw the same arguments in reverse. In Windows 3.1, we did the equivalent of pinning by putting the app's launch icon on the desktop or in a folder (like fences does).
There was a huge controversy when the Start button was introduced, about how it was better, easier for people to find stuff, etc.
It was then argued that this was Microsoft forcing users to do it there way (no program manager and so not giving customers the choice), and that users would be loosing the customization they where used to. That the start button hid software away in layers of menus, (why do I have to click through all these menus to run something, when I used to just open a folder and it is there)
Then the point that people thought the taskbar would become cluttered (as they liked to arrange there minimized programs on the desktop or in the task switcher)
Add to the fact that almost everything needed to have new drivers (or new certified hardware).
Also you had to upgrade any software package you used (well most of them).
And that is just scratching the surface (not including Microsoft's statement about phasing out DOS in the years to come. (How dare they!))
Microsoft was doomed then to........
My first PC was an IBM 8086 4.77 MHz using 8 inch floppies (when floppy discs where..... floppy) with a green tone screen with PC-DOS 1, and have worked through MS-DOS/DR-DOS/NDOS(4DOS)/Xenix/Unix/GEM-Desktop/OS2/Linux & Windows, and every time any software company does something major to an OS this happens.
Therein lies the problem. Microsoft took a technology-centric view, not a user-centric view. I've used Windows products a long time and only used Apple products a little. I'm not an Apple phanboy, but every time I do use one, I just feel, "Wow, this is easy to use and figure out". As much as Windows fans want to dis Apple, and certainly they've had their duds, their successes have been because they've focused on what the user does and needs. Per the long video that describes how MS decided to do Windows 8, people will step out of what they're comfortable with into something new and innovative *if* it gives them a big benefit or improvement in usability.The world is turning to touch so that's the path they took, they also made the bold step of one OS to fit everything and this is probably what is pissing most people off.
That's the issue. What you're saying is that Windows 8 really isn't an innovation (contrary to what MS was trying to do). It's a Metro UI (a full screen start menu) slapped on top of a familiar Windows, and the Metro UI, in the opinion of many users (not all) doesn't benefit them because it seems to assume a touch screen for optimum usability. They see it as getting in their way of what they use a PC for. MS made this change because they concluded, from historical examples, that innovation takes users away from what their comfortable with. However, they seem to have forgotten that such an innovation must be more than just different. It must be more useful in some way (integrates and simplifies what the user used to do in other ways) and not just give them a different way that they have to learn.What I can't understand is why, I don't find it that much different except for metro and a few things are in different places. What I really can't understand why now 6 months later we're still talking about Vista and all the doom and gloom. Windows 7 is still there for those who want it and Windows 8 is there for those who want to move on.
I'm sure some people "hate" MS. I don't "hate" them. I used to, because I always saw MS as spending most of their energy trying to lock me into their technology and inhibit me from benefiting from other, frankly, better ones. In the current case, though, I just don't find Windows 8 of any benefit to me as a user. I understand the technical reasons why it's good to consolidate OS environments. There are even some good user reasons to consolidate them. But, it's not always the right thing to do for the user. Maybe future changes in the OS and/or our hardware platforms will improve this for Windows 8.Is the hatred for MS that bad that everyone wants to bury it and live in an Apple world, or can we just put up with the changes. Me, I want to see where Windows 8 will end up, I find all the new tablets and convertible touch notebooks exciting, I just wish more people could see what I can see.
No that is not all that it is. The unified OS is supposed to help programmers create apps that be used
Across all platforms and synch with each other. It is far more than just a GUI. And that is where people
Stop and lose sight of the bigger picture and the one not being talked about.
And on top of that, there is even more. But OMG, THAT GUI ..... RRRRaAARrrrrr
Sent from my WP7
It also requires the purchase of additional hardware, that is essentially where they shot themselves in the foot.That's the issue. What you're saying is that Windows 8 really isn't an innovation (contrary to what MS was trying to do). It's a Metro UI (a full screen start menu) slapped on top of a familiar Windows, and the Metro UI, in the opinion of many users (not all) doesn't benefit them because it seems to assume a touch screen for optimum usability. They see it as getting in their way of what they use a PC for. MS made this change because they concluded, from historical examples, that innovation takes users away from what their comfortable with. However, they seem to have forgotten that such an innovation must be more than just different. It must be more useful in some way (integrates and simplifies what the user used to do in other ways) and not just give them a different way that they have to learn.
how many 10 point multi touch monitors are there on the market?
how many of those are at a reasonable price point?
how many of you would be willing to part ways with your current 22"/24" led/3d monitors? that some may well have just bought.
what microsoft failed to do was look at the hardware market for desktops and just assumed manufacturers of touchscreen monitors would follow suit...but they haven't.
yes tablets are seeing a growing market, that's pretty natural really considering they are always improving and desktops for most users needs aren't improving at any fast pace, what i mean by that is a i7 bought 4 years ago is still perfectly good today, just the same as the older core 2 quad range are still usable for most applications that's years of potential use and no requirement for a new faster pc that doesn't actually work much faster unless your using certain applications.
but a tablet bought a few years ago is effectively redundant today, through lack of o/s updates that should have been available and improvments to the hardware they can fit in.
once a tablet hits the market that does enough and the hardware reaches a maturity and the o/s can last a few years you'll see a massive drop off in tablet sales simply because they won't need to be replaced.
you can not compare tablet sales to pc sales for those reasons.
just look at the sales of ipads, they are declining because the ipad 3 isn't much better than the ipad 2 so people don't feel the need to upgrade as the jump isn't high enough to warrant the purchase. nuff said.
Nobody is trying to take away your keyboard or your mouse, so please stop pretending they are.
I will argue that if & when tablet sales drop off, it will be due to some newer paradigm. Finger-tracking stereo-glasses, perhaps? After that.. well, I'm already speculating.. Suffice to say there will always be new markets in technology; things will never be "good enough".
Not to mention that tablets, by their nature, much like phones tend to take a lot of abuse. Desktops, not usually so much (funny videos of guys bashing their computers aside). So they will break far more often than desktops, and probably somewhat more often than laptops, as people seem to treat laptops with more care.