StarDestroyer.Net BBS

weemadando wrote:I. Love. The. Ribbon.
Fuck you haters.

Most of the nerd-screeching about that was "no official backwards compatibilty" (i.e you couldn't keep the classic interface without third party software that may cost and may not work well).

The Office example is a good one for 'regular' people, because it did meet a lot of resistance across the board. Looking back, it's actually pretty impressive how rapidly such a massive change was accepted, or even at it was accepted at all.

MS does not change shit. Dumber people gulp it up (they don't have massive needs for it anyway) or hack the UI with third-party stuff.

But most companies here still use XP so that's still not a major issue.

Stark wrote:You mean like how Vista rearranged a bunch of moderate use functions in totally different ways with different relationships? I think it's possible to say that some things like that (like the Win7 arrangement of networking options) are arguably just bad.

Yes.

Edi wrote:This, incidentally, is the reason why we still use the qwerty keyboard layout, which was originally designed to make typing as slow as possible. It would be possible to rearrange the keyboard layout for much faster typing, because jamming a mechanical typewriter by too quick keypresses is not an issue in the computer age, but good luck trying to push that one through since the current layout is in every user's muscle memory and would have to be unlearned as the new layout was learned.

This is a really widespread misunderstanding. The QWERTY key layout was not designed to make typing "as slow as possible," it was to make it as fast as possible, given mechanical constraints of typebar typewriters. Typebar typewriters didn't jam "when keypresses were too quick," they tended to jam if two keys near one another on the key layout were pressed near-simultaneously. The QWERTY layout separates most common digraphs (in English) so that letters struck frequently one right after another have typebars placed widely enough apart that they are unlikely the physically interfere with one another. Other constraints influenced the placement of various keys (vowels placed almost all on the top row, e.g.), but "as slow as possible" was never a design goal, nor an actual effect.

Given that many smartphone users use both thumbs in order to operate OSKs, separating common digraphs (so that the thumbs can be operated in near-parallel) is still a smart move, from an ergonomic standpoint.

[quote="someone_else"MS does not change shit. Dumber people gulp it up (they don't have massive needs for it anyway) or hack the UI with third-party stuff.

But most companies here still use XP so that's still not a major issue.[/quote]

This post is absolutely priceless. 'MS does not change shit'!

Edi wrote:It can, AFAIK, also be turned into the default interface. The Metro interface can also be turned off entirely, though IIRC at present it requires some work.

IIRC the ability to disable metro entriely was removed in one of the later beta's, I've not tried it personally since the original preview build though.

The metro that you have to use is the start screen, no more. There are no other replacements to functionality or any of that.

I just found this: Power8

I find it interesting that someone managed to create this competent replacement for the start menu that doesn't even need installation. It even adds the option to shut down these annoying corners, meaning you only see Metro if you really want to by pressing the Windows key. It should also be a warning signal to MS that users actively work on changing to UI to their own needs.

To rub even more salt into the wound, another programm that doesn't need to be installen, Classic Starter, even allows you to skip Metro at startup and goes directly to the desktop.

What I find embarrassing for MS is, that it obviously is very easy to implement these options, making me wonder why they refuse to do so in the first place, as it would certainly make the whole thing more acceptable.

Tribun wrote:What I find embarrassing for MS is, that it obviously is very easy to implement these options, making me wonder why they refuse to do so in the first place, as it would certainly make the whole thing more acceptable.

Maybe because they want people to be testing Metro while Windows 8 is still in beta. So they force Metro upon the people beta testing it, but plan to give the option for release.

What I find embarrassing is that smart clued in computer pro elite nerds can ask such stupid questions. It's almost like they're actually clueless idiots who just learned to parrot TECH SAVVY websites to sound smart.

It's a WARNING TO MICROSOFT that people dislike change! Because I bet they had no fucking idea, right?

Tribun wrote:I just found this: Power8

I find it interesting that someone managed to create this competent replacement for the start menu that doesn't even need installation. It even adds the option to shut down these annoying corners, meaning you only see Metro if you really want to by pressing the Windows key. It should also be a warning signal to MS that users actively work on changing to UI to their own needs.

To rub even more salt into the wound, another programm that doesn't need to be installen, Classic Starter, even allows you to skip Metro at startup and goes directly to the desktop.

What I find embarrassing for MS is, that it obviously is very easy to implement these options, making me wonder why they refuse to do so in the first place, as it would certainly make the whole thing more acceptable.

One theory I've seen is that the whole exercise is basically trying to force a critical mass on the Windows App Store. Since that's apparently supposed to be the same thing for desktop and mobile, apps written for one should work on the other, especially since they have the same interface. Given that large numbers of people are going to have desktops with metro on them, that means that there's a large market for metro apps. That, so the theory goes, means that developers will write a lot of metro apps to satisfy that market. If there are a lot of metro apps, that will make a Windows phone more attractive.

If you allow people to turn off metro entirely, then that market gets smaller, probably a lot smaller, because people don't like learning new UIs when the old one worked fine. If that's accurate, then I think that Windows 9 would introduce an option to enable or disable metro; at that point, either it's created a metro ecosystem and boosted Windows mobile, or it's failed to do so and another iteration of the same thing probably wouldn't have any more success. They could spin it as 'listening to customer feedback' or something.

Or, of course, it could all be hot air and waffling.

I just want to know where you heard it, so I can go to these places.

Dudez, it doesn't matter really. Because what incentive does a Win7 user have to upgrade? 64-bit application support? No. Compatibility problems meaning new stuff won't run on Win7? No. Cool new design to make Applefags drool? No. New exciting computing possibilities or programming/networking environments? No.

It's just Win7 with metro. It's even a smaller increment than Vista/7 jump. Something closer to 98/98SE. And I think MS realizes this.

This post is absolutely priceless. 'MS does not change shit'!

I wanted to say "its shit". Written like that is indeed funnier.

MS doesn't give a damn about such complaints because hey, that's windows. Everyone uses windows. The same applies to Office.

Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Tolya wrote:Dudez, it doesn't matter really. Because what incentive does a Win7 user have to upgrade? 64-bit application support? No. Compatibility problems meaning new stuff won't run on Win7? No. Cool new design to make Applefags drool? No. New exciting computing possibilities or programming/networking environments? No.

Native virtualization (Hyper-V 3.0) is genuinely interesting for me, along with the general refinements of the desktop UI that will be introduced (see the Building Windows 8 blog for details). I remain skeptical on Metro integration.

Edi wrote:I don't know how many people like the new interface. My main irritation with it is that if I need certain functions in quick succession. I need to first change ribbon tabs, then select whatever function I need, pick the options I want if there is a submenu, then go back to what I was doing and then do the same song and dance all over again a few moments later. With old UI I could access all the menus from the menu bar, thus skipping the annoying back and forth that is required with the ribbon UI.

Quick access bar?

Starglider wrote:Metro works fairly well as a quick admin interface in Windows Server 2012; it's a bit smoother and more pleasant, although you still have to drop into the old control panel and clunky stand-alone utils for some config (in the release candidate at least)

I think the intent for Server 2012 is to use PowerShell as your primary configuration interface.

someone_else wrote: Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

General Zod wrote:

someone_else wrote: Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

Entry level Mac netbook - $999. Entry level PC netbook - $250.

Entry level iMac - $1199. Quad-core PC desktop - $599 from Dell, $549 from HP, and that's not even entry level - those start at $349.

If you can buy 2+ of one for the same price as 1 of another, I think "far far cheaper" is a fair assessment.

Terralthra wrote:

General Zod wrote:

someone_else wrote: Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

If you can buy 2+ of one for the same price as 1 of another, I think "far far cheaper" is a fair assessment.

Except that's not what he actually said.

General Zod wrote:

someone_else wrote:Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

ok, ok, there are windows boxes that can cost up and beyond 3000$ and aren't even gaming, but those are a tiny amount of the total number of windows boxes around, the bulk is at around 500$

let's put it like this, I have generalized a bit too much, but only apple fanboys would seriously consider pointing it out.

Did you just admit you were wrong and backhandedly insult people who pointed it out?

Tolya wrote:Cool new design to make Applefags drool?

Explain yourself. Now.

He's parroting mindless 4chan-speak because it's easier than thinking.

someone_else wrote:

General Zod wrote:

someone_else wrote:Besides, even Metro is still better than any Linux I tried (it's Windows! lol!), and any machine running it (without bigass touchscreens) far far cheaper than anything made by apple. So even if it is worse than Win 7 it will eventually phase it out if that is what MS wants.

Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

ok, ok, there are windows boxes that can cost up and beyond 3000$ and aren't even gaming, but those are a tiny amount of the total number of windows boxes around, the bulk is at around 500$

let's put it like this, I have generalized a bit too much, but only apple fanboys would seriously consider pointing it out.

I have a simpler explanation. You're an idiot brandslave.

Thanas wrote:

Tolya wrote:Cool new design to make Applefags drool?

Explain yourself. Now.

Alright, since I used a word that may have offended some people, because of the sexual remark it carries, for that I apologize. The word I should have used is something closer to "Appleslaves", for the lack of a better idea.

Jonathan Ive said something that I think sums up their entire venture pretty well. Apparently, "Apple's aim is not to make money, but just great equipment" - read it in polish news so the re-translation may be a little off. Apparently they should try harder, because they are excellent at making money, but try using magic mouse for 8 hours straight drawing in photoshop/illustrator. And you have to pay 70 bucks for that "pleasure".

If there's some secret about Apple's stuff, I have not discovered it yet, even though I worked on Macs, on and off, since Leopard came about.

Tolya wrote:
Jonathan Ive said something that I think sums up their entire venture pretty well. Apparently, "Apple's aim is not to make money, but just great equipment" - read it in polish news so the re-translation may be a little off. Apparently they should try harder, because they are excellent at making money, but try using magic mouse for 8 hours straight drawing in photoshop/illustrator. And you have to pay 70 bucks for that "pleasure".

If there's some secret about Apple's stuff, I have not discovered it yet, even though I worked on Macs, on and off, since Leopard came about.

So what you're saying is you let their marketing do all the thinking for you?

General Zod wrote:

someone_else wrote:

General Zod wrote:Uh, no? The high-end Macs will cost a small fortune, but the lower end models run about on par with a typical gaming notebook. Entry level Macs only go for about $1000, which isn't really that much.

ok, ok, there are windows boxes that can cost up and beyond 3000$ and aren't even gaming, but those are a tiny amount of the total number of windows boxes around, the bulk is at around 500$let's put it like this, I have generalized a bit too much, but only apple fanboys would seriously consider pointing it out.

I have a simpler explanation. You're an idiot brandslave.

Awesome , my attempts at humour suck even if I add smilies.
I apologize, I thought "apple fanboy" wasn't a so serious offence AND that the at the end would convery the "just-poking-at-you" tone of the message. Must have been wrong .