7 ways to bring back the PC: Fix or dump Windows 8

[Mycroft]

I agree that most people think of the tiled interface as the sum total of Windows 8, and I agree that that's not really accurate. However...

1) The tiled interface sucks, so far as I can tell, so why bother screwing with it at all? If the primary difference between Windows 7 and 8 is this useless tile interface (and I have played with it a bit - not extensively - and so far it sucks), why invest in such a thing?

2) I'm very concerned about what it (Windows 8, not the tile interface) might do as far as backwards compatibility with existing software, and most especially with games. Microsoft has a spectacularly bad track record with such things.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my Android phone and tablet...and I see the tile interface as being no different. It is even easy to manipulate with a mouse and keyboard. However, I recognize that other's preferences might differ. Bottom line...I don't think it sucks...I like it.

As far as Win8's backward compatability....if Win7 will run it, Win8 will run it...and probably faster and more stable.

 

[sangha]

I agree that most people think of the tiled interface as the sum total of Windows 8, and I agree that that's not really accurate. However...

1) The tiled interface sucks, so far as I can tell, so why bother screwing with it at all? If the primary difference between Windows 7 and 8 is this useless tile interface (and I have played with it a bit - not extensively - and so far it sucks), why invest in such a thing?

2) I'm very concerned about what it (Windows 8, not the tile interface) might do as far as backwards compatibility with existing software, and most especially with games. Microsoft has a spectacularly bad track record with such things.

1) People don't buy a new OS for the features of the OS. They buy an OS based on the apps it supports. Win8 makes it easier for programmers to develop apps that work on multiple platforms (ie desktop PC's and mobile devices). It's new, so these apps aren't out yet so the advantage of Win8 is not yet apparent

2) Many games are resource hogs so the developers often use non-standard code to get the best performance. As a result, any changes to the software or hardware will cause problems. Games will always have compatibility issues, at least for the immediate future.

 

[beerftw]

I use the traditional desktop 85% of the time, but I don't avoid the Modern UI, either. I switch back and forth as necessary.

Your "Model T" analogy doesn't hold true. A better analogy would be to compare a car built in 2005 to one being built this year: The five most connected cars | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

not realy when you compare things,things like control panel or my computer opr browsing files take lobger through metro,and they practically eliminated those funtion on the standard desktop unless you download third party programs.

i shouldnt have to search to do basic computer functions,in winch win 8 is only more practicalif you only use internet explorer email and facebook,so far the numbers have spoken and the population has rejecte it.


capitalism 101,to make profit you sell products people want,not make products people dont and attemopt to force them to use it.

 

[Aderleth]

I'm perfectly comfortable with my Android phone and tablet...and I see the tile interface as being no different. It is even easy to manipulate with a mouse and keyboard. However, I recognize that other's preferences might differ. Bottom line...I don't think it sucks...I like it.

As far as Win8's backward compatability....if Win7 will run it, Win8 will run it...and probably faster and more stable.

If that's actually true, then I have no significant problem with the OS, except to the extent that I don't think the tile interface is nearly as useful in a PC context as it is for a smartphone (I have an Iphone 5, FYI). The mouse interface is extremely simple to understand, and everyone gets it already. Why change things up? To be clear, I recognize that this issue is more aesthetic than anything else, but it also strikes me as a baffling and fundamentally unnecessary change in direction. To me, this kind of thing is roughly analogous to Facebook making drastic changes to its interface all the time. Sure, people get used to it, but why should they need to? Why change something that lots of people already like if it's simply cosmetic and not actually better?

 

[Aderleth]

1) People don't buy a new OS for the features of the OS. They buy an OS based on the apps it supports. Win8 makes it easier for programmers to develop apps that work on multiple platforms (ie desktop PC's and mobile devices). It's new, so these apps aren't out yet so the advantage of Win8 is not yet apparent

That's by far the best argument I've heard in favor of Windows 8. It's also slightly troubling, to the extent that I like my computer the way it is, and I really don't want to see it operating more like a smartphone.

2) Many games are resource hogs so the developers often use non-standard code to get the best performance. As a result, any changes to the software or hardware will cause problems. Games will always have compatibility issues, at least for the immediate future.

Which is why I always get annoyed when companies make huge and unnecessary changes to an OS. To be clear, I don't think this problem is as unavoidable as you're suggesting. I've found, for instance (and obviously this is entirely anecdotal) that transferring to Windows 7 was a non-issue from a gaming perspective, whereas transferring to Vista was a ****ing nightmare way back when. I'm hoping (and I have no way to confirm this just yet) that the Windows 8 upgrade will be more like the transfer to Windows 7 than like the transfer to Vista.

 

[Mycroft]

not realy when you compare things,things like control panel or my computer opr browsing files take lobger through metro,and they practically eliminated those funtion on the standard desktop unless you download third party programs.

i shouldnt have to search to do basic computer functions,in winch win 8 is only more practicalif you only use internet explorer email and facebook,so far the numbers have spoken and the population has rejecte it.


capitalism 101,to make profit you sell products people want,not make products people dont and attemopt to force them to use it.

Like I said...I have a hard time believing you've used Win8 for more than an hour.

Move your cursor to the lower left of your screen...right click the icon...BAM!! Select control panel. Is that any harder than using a Start Button? Plus...you can pin the control panel to your Modern UI and bring it up with one click. Easy-peasy.

File explorer is still available in desktop mode....My Computer is still there. Why do you have problems using it in desktop mode? Furthermore, there are file explorer apps that work just as well for the Modern UI mode. Or...you can click on the search charm, type a few letters of the filename you are looking for and it finds it. Again...easy-peasy.

Perhaps you don't like Win8 because you have a hard time learning something new, eh?

 

[Mycroft]

If that's actually true, then I have no significant problem with the OS, except to the extent that I don't think the tile interface is nearly as useful in a PC context as it is for a smartphone (I have an Iphone 5, FYI). The mouse interface is extremely simple to understand, and everyone gets it already. Why change things up? To be clear, I recognize that this issue is more aesthetic than anything else, but it also strikes me as a baffling and fundamentally unnecessary change in direction. To me, this kind of thing is roughly analogous to Facebook making drastic changes to its interface all the time. Sure, people get used to it, but why should they need to? Why change something that lots of people already like if it's simply cosmetic and not actually better?

My son is heavily into Steam games...FPS's to be specific. There is a Win8 app that integrates a boatload of his Steam data in the live tile, enables him to start games with a click or two and do everything else you can do on Steam...all without even going into desktop mode. He loves Win8.

 

[Aderleth]

My son is heavily into Steam games...FPS's to be specific. There is a Win8 app that integrates a boatload of his Steam data in the live tile, enables him to start games with a click or two and do everything else you can do on Steam...all without even going into desktop mode. He loves Win8.

That's a decent argument, but I ****ing HATE steam.

(Long story)

 

[sangha]

That's by far the best argument I've heard in favor of Windows 8. It's also slightly troubling, to the extent that I like my computer the way it is, and I really don't want to see it operating more like a smartphone.

Thank you, and I completely sympathize with your POV. But think about it from MS POV.

Mobile devices are huge now. They have to show that they're in the game. While it's pretty meaningless to the typical end-user, it's very significant to those who develop apps and those who depend on those people. Now, they can see path to taking their current apps, and making them accessible to anyone with a smart phone. Now, the IT Mgr (who makes the really big decisions when it comes to purchasing s/w and h/w) can envision the day when he no longer has to deliver a massive report (detailing corporate wide sales by region, store, product line, etc) to his boss, and instead just show his boss (who probably doesn't have a PC on his desk) how to access all those numbers on his smart phone.

Now the boss doesn't have to carry massive reports to meetings, and can access the #'s wherever he is (including the gold course where he can impress his buddies) so he's happy. Happy boss, happy employee.

Which is why I always get annoyed when companies make huge and unnecessary changes to an OS. To be clear, I don't think this problem is as unavoidable as you're suggesting. I've found, for instance (and obviously this is entirely anecdotal) that transferring to Windows 7 was a non-issue from a gaming perspective, whereas transferring to Vista was a ****ing nightmare way back when. I'm hoping (and I have no way to confirm this just yet) that the Windows 8 upgrade will be more like the transfer to Windows 7 than like the transfer to Vista.

I suspect you're right. Internally, things are pretty similar as far as functionality goes, but you never know with these things.

 

[Aderleth]

Thank you, and I completely sympathize with your POV. But think about it from MS POV.

Mobile devices are huge now. They have to show that they're in the game. While it's pretty meaningless to the typical end-user, it's very significant to those who develop apps and those who depend on those people. Now, they can see path to taking their current apps, and making them accessible to anyone with a smart phone. Now, the IT Mgr (who makes the really big decisions when it comes to purchasing s/w and h/w) can envision the day when he no longer has to deliver a massive report (detailing corporate wide sales by region, store, product line, etc) to his boss, and instead just show his boss (who probably doesn't have a PC on his desk) how to access all those numbers on his smart phone.

Now the boss doesn't have to carry massive reports to meetings, and can access the #'s wherever he is (including the gold course where he can impress his buddies) so he's happy. Happy boss, happy employee.

I totally get that. To be clear, I'm a civil litigation attorney working in San Francisco. The vast majority of the cases that I work on involve major tech companies (obviously I can't tell you which ones), so I understand the kinds of pressure that they're under (b/c I have access to internal conversations, etc). However, I think that in the long run, major companies are better off finding ways to distinguish PC's from smartphones than they are trying to make the two things similar. Smartphones need a touchscreen interface because they're tiny little screens with no external human interface devices. Anyone using a laptop or a desktop has access to far superior interface devices (i.e. keyboard and mice). My thinking is that they're better off playing to the strengths of those things rather than abandoning them in favor of the far less efficient touchscreen approach.

 

[Mycroft]

I totally get that. To be clear, I'm a civil litigation attorney working in San Francisco. The vast majority of the cases that I work on involve major tech companies (obviously I can't tell you which ones), so I understand the kinds of pressure that they're under (b/c I have access to internal conversations, etc). However, I think that in the long run, major companies are better off finding ways to distinguish PC's from smartphones than they are trying to make the two things similar. Smartphones need a touchscreen interface because they're tiny little screens with no external human interface devices. Anyone using a laptop or a desktop has access to far superior interface devices (i.e. keyboard and mice). My thinking is that they're better off playing to the strengths of those things rather than abandoning them in favor of the far less efficient touchscreen approach.

The area of desktop touchscreens is the only part of using Win8 that I'm disappointed with...and it's not because of Win8. It because of the lack of an affordable 27" touchscreen monitor. I have two 27" monitors right now. I'd love to add a third that is touchscreen. I'd do all my Modern UI stuff on that one and use the other two for desktop stuff like I do now.

 

[Aderleth]

The area of desktop touchscreens is the only part of using Win8 that I'm disappointed with...and it's not because of Win8. It because of the lack of an affordable 27" touchscreen monitor. I have two 27" monitors right now. I'd love to add a third that is touchscreen. I'd do all my Modern UI stuff on that one and use the other two for desktop stuff like I do now.

Strictly from an ergonomic standpoint, I really don't see how touchscreens are a viable interface in a desktop/laptop context. Granted I've never tried to deal with such a thing, but I suspect that if they were implemented on a broad scale, we'd start to see quite a lot more (and more significant) repetitive stress issues going on.

 

[sangha]

I totally get that. To be clear, I'm a civil litigation attorney working in San Francisco. The vast majority of the cases that I work on involve major tech companies (obviously I can't tell you which ones), so I understand the kinds of pressure that they're under (b/c I have access to internal conversations, etc). However, I think that in the long run, major companies are better off finding ways to distinguish PC's from smartphones than they are trying to make the two things similar. Smartphones need a touchscreen interface because they're tiny little screens with no external human interface devices. Anyone using a laptop or a desktop has access to far superior interface devices (i.e. keyboard and mice). My thinking is that they're better off playing to the strengths of those things rather than abandoning them in favor of the far less efficient touchscreen approach.

True, and that's what they're planning to do with Win8.

As you point out, the main difference between a desktop and a handheld is the interface. IOW, all of the database code and all of the business logic is the same. After all, getting the data (for total sales, as an example) is the same whether you're going to present it on a desktop or a mobile device. The only difference is how you present it. With Win8, it's easier to use the same code for the data access and business logic for both the desktop and the handheld. All you have to do is write two versions of the code that presents the data (one version for the desktop, and one version for the mobile device).

Before this, if you wanted a mobile device to access your data, you had to write the all the code over (because smartphones didn't run Windows), otherwise known as "re-inventing the wheel". You had to keep two sets of code for data access and business logic (one for the desktop, and one for the mobile) Now, there's one set of code for data access and business logic. Then, all you have to do is write presentation code for however many different types of interfaces. If a new interface comes out, you can have your applications run on it by merely writing the presentation code for it.

And it makes it easier to maintain code. Before, if you got a request for a new feature, you had to change the code in both sets of programs and track two sets of changes. Now, you can just change the one set of code (assuming the change doesn't affect the presentation)

 

[sangha]

Strictly from an ergonomic standpoint, I really don't see how touchscreens are a viable interface in a desktop/laptop context. Granted I've never tried to deal with such a thing, but I suspect that if they were implemented on a broad scale, we'd start to see quite a lot more (and more significant) repetitive stress issues going on.

The main advantage of touchscreen interfaces (aside from their usefulness on smaller devices) is to emulate other interfaces. Music production is an area where this is useful. Recording engineers are used to using a piece of hardware called a mixer. Touchscreens do a wonderful job of emulating the switches, buttons and sliders that are usually found on mixers

Another area ripe for touchscreens is medical technology

 

[Mycroft]

Strictly from an ergonomic standpoint, I really don't see how touchscreens are a viable interface in a desktop/laptop context. Granted I've never tried to deal with such a thing, but I suspect that if they were implemented on a broad scale, we'd start to see quite a lot more (and more significant) repetitive stress issues going on.

When they sell this one in 27" for $400 or less, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

Dell ST2220T 2013 | Pros & Cons of the Best Dell Touchscreen Monitor - TopTenREVIEWS




Whoops...I just noticed this is an "optical" touchscreen...not "capacitive" touchscreen. But still, I like the way it'll stand at various angles or even lie flat.

 

[Aderleth]

The main advantage of touchscreen interfaces (aside from their usefulness on smaller devices) is to emulate other interfaces. Music production is an area where this is useful. Recording engineers are used to using a piece of hardware called a mixer. Touchscreens do a wonderful job of emulating the switches, buttons and sliders that are usually found on mixers

Another area ripe for touchscreens is medical technology

Those are good specific contexts in which a touchscreen has some value. However,

1) I'm an amateur DJ, I've been using mixing software of various types for about a decade now; and I really, really like the mouse interface for the software that I use. I'm sure I could adapt to the touchscreen approach, but I'm not sure it'd be any better, really. The details can get complicated, and I'm sure there are professionals out there who would disagree with me. Partially my concern is (as I referenced to Mycroft earlier) ergonomic. Holding your arm up to a monitor at a right angle to your body for long periods of time is not good for you.

2) While I completely agree that the purpose of the touchscreen interface in a PC context is to emulate other devices, I'm not remotely convinced that that's either good or even necessary. I still think that one of the primary things that a laptop/desktop has going for it (over a tablet or smartphone) is that it is capable of interfacing conveniently with more user friendly tech (like the mouse and keyboard). Put another way, there's nothing that's made more inherently efficient by a tablet interface.

3) Don't get me wrong: I understand why compatibility with (smartphone) apps is extremely desirable. I'm just not sure it's the right direction to take, in the long run.

 

[Aderleth]

When they sell this one in 27" for $400 or less, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

Dell ST2220T 2013 | Pros & Cons of the Best Dell Touchscreen Monitor - TopTenREVIEWS

View attachment 67146197

And more power to you. I don't think that's for me, though, and I'd really prefer not to have to invest in such a thing at some point.

 

[sangha]

Those are good specific contexts in which a touchscreen has some value. However,

1) I'm an amateur DJ, I've been using mixing software of various types for about a decade now; and I really, really like the mouse interface for the software that I use. I'm sure I could adapt to the touchscreen approach, but I'm not sure it'd be any better, really. The details can get complicated, and I'm sure there are professionals out there who would disagree with me. Partially my concern is (as I referenced to Mycroft earlier) ergonomic. Holding your arm up to a monitor at a right angle to your body for long periods of time is not good for you.

2) While I completely agree that the purpose of the touchscreen interface in a PC context is to emulate other devices, I'm not remotely convinced that that's either good or even necessary. I still think that one of the primary things that a laptop/desktop has going for it (over a tablet or smartphone) is that it is capable of interfacing conveniently with more user friendly tech (like the mouse and keyboard). Put another way, there's nothing that's made more inherently efficient by a tablet interface.

3) Don't get me wrong: I understand why compatibility with (smartphone) apps is extremely desirable. I'm just not sure it's the right direction to take, in the long run.

1) The answer is: Swivel mounted screens

However, some applications will not be as good on a touch screen. If you do "scratching" (I think that's what it's called when you hold the record and move it so the needle moves over a specific section of the vinyl at the speed you want it to), a touch screen will probably never be as precise

2) Upgrading will be easier and cheaper. Now, if you want new features on your mixing board (or medical device) you have to throw out your hardware and buy a new piece of h/w. With digital devices and touchscreens, you just install new software.

3) LUDDITE!!!!

Just kidding.

 

[Mycroft]

Here's another good one...and it's a 27"er. Unfortunately, it costs almost $900.

Planar Helium 2013 | Find Best LCD Touchscreen Computer Monitor - TopTenREVIEWS

 

[Aderleth]

1) The answer is: Swivel mounted screens

That's an answer, but I could also just use a mouse, which costs way the hell less than an extra screen, and can take quite a bit more punishment. I've had the same mouse attached to my home computer for 6-7 years. If I had a touchscreen, I'd have had to replace it numerous times now. Especially for serious DJ's (which I am not). If you're working in a nightclub, you have to deal with spilled drinks, **** getting bumped, dropped, etc. A new mouse costs $20. A new touchscreen? Quite a lot more. And for no real benefit, so far as I can tell.

However, some applications will not be as good on a touch screen. If you do "scratching" (I think that's what it's called when you hold the record and move it so the needle moves over a specific section of the vinyl at the speed you want it to), a touch screen will probably never be as precise

That's a problem, to be sure. Although I wonder (to play devils advocate) if that's inherently the case, or a reflection of the new-ness of the tech. Because if they can get that **** worked out to the point where it's indistinguishable from playing with an actual record, that's an excellent use for touchscreen tech.

2) Upgrading will be easier and cheaper. Now, if you want new features on your mixing board (or medical device) you have to throw out your hardware and buy a new piece of h/w. With digital devices and touchscreens, you just install new software.

But that's mostly already true with existing software/interfaces (not literal mixing boards obviously, but certainly with the software platforms that have been created in the last 6-8 years to approximate mixing boards). I've gone through several updates in the last 6-8 years, and I've never needed to buy new hardware to make that work (if I'm buying new hardware, it's almost always because I'm behind the gaming curve). From a mixing standpoint, I've only needed new hardware to do things like jack into an extra audio line (for example).

3) LUDDITE!!!!

Just kidding.

Technophile! (I'm actually not sure why "technophile" is an insult, but I'm going to run with it regardless)

 

[sangha]

That's an answer, but I could also just use a mouse, which costs way the hell less than an extra screen, and can take quite a bit more punishment. I've had the same mouse attached to my home computer for 6-7 years. If I had a touchscreen, I'd have had to replace it numerous times now. Especially for serious DJ's (which I am not). If you're working in a nightclub, you have to deal with spilled drinks, **** getting bumped, dropped, etc. A new mouse costs $20. A new touchscreen? Quite a lot more. And for no real benefit, so far as I can tell.

Oh, that's right. I forgot.....You're a lawyer!!

But seriously, I imagine the mouse will be with us for a long time, but the prices will come down. They always do.

That's a problem, to be sure. Although I wonder (to play devils advocate) if that's inherently the case, or a reflection of the new-ness of the tech. Because if they can get that **** worked out to the point where it's indistinguishable from playing with an actual record, that's an excellent use for touchscreen tech.

Actually, I shouldn't have said "never". As technology advances it probably will work just as well. In fact, you'll probably be able to do things you can't do with the original hardware.

But that's mostly already true with existing software/interfaces (not literal mixing boards obviously, but certainly with the software platforms that have been created in the last 6-8 years to approximate mixing boards). I've gone through several updates in the last 6-8 years, and I've never needed to buy new hardware to make that work (if I'm buying new hardware, it's almost always because I'm behind the gaming curve). From a mixing standpoint, I've only needed new hardware to do things like jack into an extra audio line (for example).

Yes, computer based music production is a pretty mature area. Medical tech is a much better area. Think about how the field will be changed when, in order to have a new piece of medical equipment, all one has to buy is the hardware interface (ie sensors, probes, whatever) and software.

Technophile! (I'm actually not sure why "technophile" is an insult, but I'm going to run with it regardless)

The proper term is "advanced being"

 

[Aderleth]

Yes, computer based music production is a pretty mature area. Medical tech is a much better area. Think about how the field will be changed when, in order to have a new piece of medical equipment, all one has to buy is the hardware interface (ie sensors, probes, whatever) and software.

That's probably a better approach (and it's certainly something I know basically nothing about). However, it's also specialized enough that I'm not sure developing such tech for general use makes much sense. I would imagine that such an industry will always require both specialized hardware and software.

The proper term is "advanced being"

Like an avangion? (If you get that reference, I'll be very, very impressed)

 

[sangha]

That's probably a better approach (and it's certainly something I know basically nothing about). However, it's also specialized enough that I'm not sure developing such tech for general use makes much sense. I would imagine that such an industry will always require both specialized hardware and software.

Yes, because the major purpose of touchscreens is to emulate physical interfaces, it seems as if the benefits will be limited to specialized applications.

Like an avangion? (If you get that reference, I'll be very, very impressed)

Had to Google it. Not D&D fan.

 

[Mycroft]

I actually think gesture control will become widespread before touchscreen desktop monitor prices come down to a manageable level.

HP to Embed Leap Motion's 3D Gesture Control Into Select PCs | Maximum PC

https://www.leapmotion.com/product

 

[Mycroft]

And speaking of gesture control, Win8 is ready to take advantage of that right now.