Windows 8 is HERE !!!!

Theres faily little point in using it with just a standard keyboard and mouse setup.XaosII

I wasn't saying that we wouldn't be able to use classic. I don't even run Windows as my main OS anyway. I was just pointing out that, in general, a touchscreen UI and touchscreen monitor is rather inferior to what we already have for the desktop. Microsoft is making a senseless decision to force metro upon people until they deactivate it.

The default for a Windows desktop should be Windows 7 shell style, not a touch interface. The touch interface would be available just like Media Center is but not default! They could arrange it so that if a touch screen in detected during setup then the user could set that as default.

Tezcatlipoca666

I dont understand how people can be so dense.

If you dont care for the touchbased features, you don't have to use them.

I dont know how many times it needs to be said.

The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops. Its the entire point of its existence. Its not meant to be used on a dektop if you dont want to. just like Windows XP had pen-writing capaibilities in it - it wasn't meant to be used without a pen-based device. And just like pen and touch capabilities since Windows XP existed, the features were not on by default unless it detected a touch or pen based device. Why would you expect this to be any different? he demoed it on a tablet with touchbased features.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Theres faily little point in using it with just a standard keyboard and mouse setup.Qixote

No. Its not at all. You can't do multiple points of interaction with just a mouse cursor (i.e. multitouch features like pinch to zoom). Gesturing with your mouse to zoom is really, really awkward, which is why mouse wheels were added in the first place. Things that require three points or more of articulation are nearly impossible to do with a mouse, such as freely rotate an image around one point (one finger on the point of rotation, two others on your other hand to move the direction).

You also have no pressure sensitivity. Resistive touchbased screens are digital, but capacitive screens have some level of analog pressure emulation. A mouse cursor is eitehr clicked or not clicked. A finger can have varying degrees of pressure.

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

I wasn't saying that we wouldn't be able to use classic. I don't even run Windows as my main OS anyway. I was just pointing out that, in general, a touchscreen UI and touchscreen monitor is rather inferior to what we already have for the desktop. Microsoft is making a senseless decision to force metro upon people until they deactivate it.

The default for a Windows desktop should be Windows 7 shell style, not a touch interface. The touch interface would be available just like Media Center is but not default! They could arrange it so that if a touch screen in detected during setup then the user could set that as default.

XaosII

I dont understand how people can be so dense.

If you dont care for the touchbased features, you don't have to use them.

I dont know how many times it needs to be said.

The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops. Its the entire point of its existence. Its not meant to be used on a dektop if you dont want to. just like Windows XP had pen-writing capaibilities in it - it wasn't meant to be used without a pen-based device. And just like pen and touch capabilities since Windows XP existed, the features were not on by default unless it detected a touch or pen based device. Why would you expect this to be any different? he demoed it on a tablet with touchbased features.

You don't seem to understand that based on what we know now, Microsoft seems to be pushing metro as the main GUI for ALL platforms. They want a one size fits all platform. The fact that you don't have to use it is IRRELEVANT. Besides, you said it yourself: "The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops.". Why then have it activated by default on desktops when windows 7 shell is better. Why default to something worse?

For desktops metro should be SECOND. An option you can activate if you happen to be a masochist and own a touch screen monitor. Not the primary UI which you can disable when you realize that it's crap.

"The first thing you will see when you start Windows 8 is the Start Screen. The Start Screen is this personal mosaic of tiles. Every app on your system is represented by a tile. Tiles are better than icons..."

"These apps are full screen, they're beautiful. They are designed for touch. But of course they work great for mouse and keyboard as well if that's what you have..."

"This is the new version of Windows. It's going to run on laptops. It's going to run on desktops. It's going to run on PCs with mouse and keyboard. It's going to run on touch slates. It's going to run on everything."

MS video

You don't seem to understand that based on what we know now, Microsoft seems to be pushing metro as the main GUI for ALL platforms. They want a one size fits all platform. The fact that you don't have to use it is IRRELEVANT. Besides, you said it yourself: "The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops.". Why then have it activated by default on desktops when windows 7 shell is better. Why default to something worse?

For desktops metro should be SECOND. An option you can activate if you happen to be a masochist and own a touch screen monitor. Not the primary UI which you can disable when you realize that it's crap.

Tezcatlipoca666

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that its the default. Yes, it was clearly the default shown because the device was a touchbased device. And yes, even if you counter with the fact that im assuming that its not the default, based on their history, features are enabled only if the applicable device exists (i.e. sound with sound output, pen input with pen, touch input with touch device, etc)

EDIT: Hell, lets assume you're right. Then your solution is simple: Turn it off. Or dont use it. Its not that serious. Again, Windows 7 introduced Homegroups to make networking easier for small home networks. I manage my own server for my home and i didnt care for it. My solution? I didnt use homegroupds instead of whining and moaning about it. It was an optional feature.

I can not stand Microsoft anymore. They are too greedy and money hungry. I will be changing over all my computers away from Moneysoft as I can and getting rid of my xbox.

Crocodile_Key

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

You don't seem to understand that based on what we know now, Microsoft seems to be pushing metro as the main GUI for ALL platforms. They want a one size fits all platform. The fact that you don't have to use it is IRRELEVANT. Besides, you said it yourself: "The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops.". Why then have it activated by default on desktops when windows 7 shell is better. Why default to something worse?

For desktops metro should be SECOND. An option you can activate if you happen to be a masochist and own a touch screen monitor. Not the primary UI which you can disable when you realize that it's crap.

XaosII

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that its the default. Yes, it was clearly the default shown because the device was a touchbased device. And yes, even if you counter with the fact that im assuming that its not the default, based on their history, features are enabled only if the applicable device exists (i.e. sound with sound output, pen input with pen, touch input with touch device, etc)

EDIT: Hell, lets assume you're right. Then your solution is simple: Turn it off. Or dont use it. Its not that serious. Again, Windows 7 introduced Homegroups to make networking easier for small home networks. I manage my own server for my home and i didnt care for it. My solution? I didnt use homegroupds instead of whining and moaning about it. It was an optional feature.

Yes, I am making assumptions. I don't think that that is too unreasonable given the nearly insignificant amount of information Microsoft has released.Of course, M$ should expect people to speculate and react when they do something like this.

In the end I don't give two **** about Windows GUI... I'm a Linux guy and log-on to Windows for games only. All I was trying to say is that Microsoft won't be doing themselves any favours by pushing metro as the default UI. Seriously, it would be a more radical shift than Ubuntu's Unity and that started a big **** storm even though it's trivial to change the DE.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

You don't seem to understand that based on what we know now, Microsoft seems to be pushing metro as the main GUI for ALL platforms. They want a one size fits all platform. The fact that you don't have to use it is IRRELEVANT. Besides, you said it yourself: "The touchscreen features were designed for tablets in mind. NOT for desktops.". Why then have it activated by default on desktops when windows 7 shell is better. Why default to something worse?

For desktops metro should be SECOND. An option you can activate if you happen to be a masochist and own a touch screen monitor. Not the primary UI which you can disable when you realize that it's crap.

Tezcatlipoca666

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that its the default. Yes, it was clearly the default shown because the device was a touchbased device. And yes, even if you counter with the fact that im assuming that its not the default, based on their history, features are enabled only if the applicable device exists (i.e. sound with sound output, pen input with pen, touch input with touch device, etc)

EDIT: Hell, lets assume you're right. Then your solution is simple: Turn it off. Or dont use it. Its not that serious. Again, Windows 7 introduced Homegroups to make networking easier for small home networks. I manage my own server for my home and i didnt care for it. My solution? I didnt use homegroupds instead of whining and moaning about it. It was an optional feature.

Yes, I am making assumptions. I don't think that that is too unreasonable given the nearly insignificant amount of information Microsoft has released.Of course, M$ should expect people to speculate and react when they do something like this.

In the end I don't give two **** about Windows GUI... I'm a Linux guy and log-on to Windows for games only. All I was trying to say is that Microsoft won't be doing themselves any favours by pushing metro as the default UI. Seriously, it would be a more radical shift than Ubuntu's Unity and that started a big **** storm even though it's trivial to change the DE.

You could ask Bill Gates for all I care....

If you think that that interface cannot be turned off and go back to the normal desktop (WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE ACTUAL VIDEO) you are very naive...

FelipeInside

It is not shown on the video, pay attention, they show theclassic desktop and explain the new UI is ALWAYS running, and to prove it they show it taking up half the screen with the classic desktop.

have you seen the process and services? no

You are just making stuff up.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

You could ask Bill Gates for all I care....

If you think that that interface cannot be turned off and go back to the normal desktop (WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE ACTUAL VIDEO) you are very naive...

kate_jones

It is not shown on the video, pay attention, they show theclassic desktop and explain the new UI is ALWAYS running, and to prove it they show it taking up half the screen with the classic desktop.

have you seen the process and services? no

You are just making stuff up.

IF ANYONE is still following this thread... I MADE A NEW ONE !!!

I love the way he writes down "hello" on Twitter while other's talk about movies :P

Vista was something like XP with 7 capabilities. It ran great, even better than XP, but it used quite a lot of RAM and with every patch it became slower and slower and more unstable (exactly like XP, though XP was garbage after two-three months, took Vista one year to reach the same bad state of XP). 7 is perfect, it's as fast as freshly installed Vista, it performs exactly the same after hundreds of updates, it uses 1.5 gigs of RAM less than Vista and stability is rock solid and it enhances certain Vista functions, but people hated it anyway, because it was released too soon after Vista and it was too similar..DanielDust

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]Vista was something like XP with 7 capabilities. It ran great, even better than XP, but it used quite a lot of RAM and with every patch it became slower and slower and more unstable (exactly like XP, though XP was garbage after two-three months, took Vista one year to reach the same bad state of XP). 7 is perfect, it's as fast as freshly installed Vista, it performs exactly the same after hundreds of updates, it uses 1.5 gigs of RAM less than Vista and stability is rock solid and it enhances certain Vista functions, but people hated it anyway, because it was released too soon after Vista and it was too similar..gmaster456

[QUOTE="gmaster456"]

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]Vista was something like XP with 7 capabilities. It ran great, even better than XP, but it used quite a lot of RAM and with every patch it became slower and slower and more unstable (exactly like XP, though XP was garbage after two-three months, took Vista one year to reach the same bad state of XP). 7 is perfect, it's as fast as freshly installed Vista, it performs exactly the same after hundreds of updates, it uses 1.5 gigs of RAM less than Vista and stability is rock solid and it enhances certain Vista functions, but people hated it anyway, because it was released too soon after Vista and it was too similar..DanielDust

The hate towards each other has gone on long enough.