Of course, to properly use the metro app aspect of Windows 8, you just simply need something touch based, a touchpad, a touch enabled mouse, or a touch screen.
And also, Windows 8 isn't a purely tablet PC based operating system or a purely desktop PC based operating system. This is basically on the user on how THEY want to use it.
I don't understand why the phrase, "desktop-friendly" means. Is this the Desktop UI or is it a desktop mouse friendly? The Desktop can be on a tablet and laptop PC, it's rather friendly. I don't get it.
From now on, I'm going to call then apps/start menu the Mobile Phone Interface (MPI), because that's what it is. It's not a desktop interface, but an add-on to the desktop that makes your program menu look like you're using a really, really, big mobile phone.
The MPI is not traditional, desktop, user friendly. It's not fast. It's not convenient. It's not logical. All of the aforementioned applies, unless you are using a mobile phone, or you simply want to love what Microsoft has concocted.
Most desktop users don't have touch-based anything, they rely on mouse and keyboard. What works for some, clearly does not work for a lot of others. It's not that it's difficult (really and truly it's not difficult to understand and use, I mean it), but it's pointless.
The Windows 7 method of taskbar and start menu just works better for so many people. Call them stupid, ignorant, Luddites, whatever, but it's what they like and it's what they want. What is one person's cheese is another's rotten milk.
Thanks for the feedback, Coke Robot.
I'll try and explain more clearly what I mean, and this also of course may just be a difference between our preferences.
To start with, I personally love popup menu lists which can expand certain folders or whatnot when they're highlighted. As I had previously mentioned, I also have popup menus for my user folder, computer, games, and links (basically replacing bookmarks/favorites, so I don't even need to open my browser before pointing it to where I want to go, or listen to internet radio stations in WMP, and the like) on the Taskbar, and of course use the Start menu primarily to run specific general programs which I've placed there, to change general computer settings, search the computer, or shut it down/restart/sleep, and the like. I find this to be very convenient for me to get to what I want, whether it be to run programs, open files, folders, and whatnot while still having on the screen what I'm actively using in different windows which can also be very easily switched between on the Taskbar, using alt+tab, clicking on, or even minimizing and maximizing. I find the new Metro style Start to be very cumbersome to use in this regard, and less convenient to use as a list of what I want to run or do with also having to switch between these different styles of interfaces.
I hardly ever use the desktop background icons, and don't even display them, because I don't prefer to find what I'm looking for that way, being less linear and hidden behind everything else, and the number of icons that I would use there if it were the main way for me to access those programs and files would make it inconvenient for me to easily find them, though I can understand the appeal of using the desktop as a kind of temp folder for what I may want to access and move around before deciding what I want to do with it. The newer desktop button does help in that respect somewhat though. So, in a way, the new Metro style interface is kind of like another desktop with a collection of active icons, and it makes more sense to me that this would incorporate the desktop icons and instead use the desktop as the new Metro style interfaces, so that it would run more seamlessly and be more incorporated with everything else in a more traditional and user-friendly way.
I understand that the Metro style interface is designed to replace the Start menu, but I think it would work much better if it instead replaced the desktop itself, while maintaining similar functionality to what it has now, still allowing users to tag whatever they wanted to it, whether traditional icons or app rectangles that you could scroll through, only still allowing for the same functionality without having to switch between screens to access the Taskbar and easily switch between and load windows in the foreground.
Last edited by Wrend; 05 Feb 2013 at 04:35.
I was only using 98 SE about 6 months and was a member of a couple MSN computer groups when XP was released.
Despite ME & 2000, everyone was stuck on 98 being the perfect program and not understanding MS change in direction.
MS needs to listen to the customers because they know what they want & it's not change.
The loyal MS fans threatened mutiny & switching to Apple, Linux, Ubuntu, Lindows etc.
Then 7. Accepted easier than XP or Vista.
Then 8, another Vista with more condemnation.
Besides Desktop toolbar & File Explorer on taskbar, I have Brink's Start Screen shortcut & All apps shortcut pinned to taskbar.
As well as Pin to Start on Context menu for documents. From the Start Screen I can right click the document shortcuts and pin to taskbar. Much more efficient than a Program with jump list for 1 document.
Once I get to my desktop in 8 it's not absolutely necessary to leave. I choose to use the start screen shortcut because of my personal organization on standard start screen & big icons. Or alphabetical organization with smaller icons using the All apps shortcut.
I went back & used 7 for about 15 minutes. Seemed like my computer had the flu. Running slow & groggy, disoriented , slight fever, constipated ...
The sooner everyone gets used to the idea that Microsoft absolutely HAD to develop an OS suitable for touch and gesture, and therefore had to make compromises for the 99.9% of users still using traditional mouse and keyboard input devices, the sooner these inane complaints will stop!
If you want the familiar desktop interface use Start 8 (or one of the numerous Start button replacements out there) or go back to Windows 7.
The way Windows 8 could've been improved is by developing ALL of the core apps and Tiles to be consistent with Metro. But this is v1.0 of their new interface so it was always likely to be incomplete.
Microsoft has decided all the people who just want a simple tablet are wrong and what they really want and need is the full power PC again but in a 10 inch tablet. They are wrong again and will fail in this market again and whilst doing so they have pissed off the people who really make them their money, business and professionals who do need a proper PC and a proper desktop OS without a mobile phone interface.
With added memory, and other hardware upgrades, it provide a 10-hour (that's right - 10 HOURS) battery life, which lasted me all day such that, unlike everyone else that was carrying around chargers, I was able to take it around all day and never had to plug it in.
I was able to upgrade it to Vista, and then to Window 7 -- and all along, ALL of the hardware worked without any problems at all.
I only retired it last year (after SIX years of use) when the project I was moved to prohibited folks from bringing in their personal laptops. I even tried Win8 on it, and that worked well, as well.
But ... it was clearly aimed at the Enterprise market, where folks wanted an alternative to a laptop -- which worked well for me because I was able to write on the surface and have my notes transformed to text -- and since I could train it to recognize my handwriting, it got better than 90% conversion rate.
Everyone who saw it was amazed and wanted to find out where to get one -- and, of course, once they found out what it cost, no one else bought one.
Agree, but unlike the original Tablet PCs, Apple redefined the Tablet as a consumer Entertainment device, basically, a TOY for the well-off.Apple re imagined what the tablet should do and it sold millions. That's what the iPad did brilliantly, it redefined the tablet,
If you mean the Android tablets, you're right -- but, once again, they're primarily Entertainment devices. Quite a few folks I know bought these and were SURPRISED to learn that they could NOT install MS Office on them! (Don't get me started with the recent Wine for Android -- that's an entirely different subject).Now the cheap copies are selling big. Consumers who never needed the power of a PC have stopped buying them in favour of simple tablets that do what they need.
Sorry to say, but you're probably right in this, too -- although -- the recent Acer announcements of tablets (the new SLATEs) that include a stylus might resurrect the features of the original Tablet PCs -- but I'm not sure anyone really wants those anymore.Microsoft has decided all the people who just want a simple tablet are wrong and what they really want and need is the full power PC again but in a 10 inch tablet. They are wrong again and will fail in this market again and whilst doing so they have pissed off the people who really make them their money, business and professionals who do need a proper PC and a proper desktop OS without a mobile phone interface.