[QUOTE=hexpunK;41677276]The savvier ones don't, but they tend to not be using XP now.[/QUOTE]
True, although there are some tech-savvy people using XP and Chome/FF/Opera[sp]/safari[/sp]. Just read the last few pages.
My school (before I left) still had IE7 on some of their machines. They clearly hate web developers.
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41677304]True, although there are some tech-savvy people using XP and Chome/FF/Opera[sp]/safari[/sp]. Just read the last few pages.
My school (before I left) still had IE7 on some of their machines. They clearly hate web developers.[/QUOTE]
I can vouch for that. A mix between XP and Windows 7, and IE7, 8, and 9.
The Network is shit. And what a surprise, we've just had "Technology College" status taken from us :v:
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;41677434]I can vouch for that. A mix between XP and Windows 7, and IE7, 8, and 9.
The Network is shit. And what a surprise, we've just had "Technology College" status taken from us :v:[/QUOTE]
9 isn't too bad. It's still not great, but not too bad :v:
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41677695]9 isn't too bad. It's still not great, but not too bad :v:[/QUOTE]
tbh it's not [I]that[/I] bad.
Although, I saw a student install chrome on one of the Inclusion Unit PCs once. There must have been some admin workaround I dodn't know about :(
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41677695]9 isn't too bad. It's still not great, but not too bad :v:[/QUOTE]
Maybe not but holy shit IE10 makes fonts look ugly.
[editline]1st August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;41677788]tbh it's not [I]that[/I] bad.
Although, I saw a student install chrome on one of the Inclusion Unit PCs once. There must have been some admin workaround I dodn't know about :([/QUOTE]
Maybe copying the installation folder?
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41677798] Maybe copying the installation folder?[/QUOTE]
I watched her download it from the Google homepage. I was sat next to her :v:
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41677798]Maybe not but holy shit IE10 makes fonts look ugly.[/QUOTE]
I expect it relies on ClearType and the DirectX font renderer, where Firefox and shit use GDI if I recall. Windows has never really been great at font rendering (or DPI scaling, or general scaling).
The cost of upgrading 20+ computers will be quite a bit for most companies, I'm still with my XP machine until the price lowers with the newer hardware, so that I won't be spending $500+ on a "ok" PC.
Also to whoever said it takes 10 mins to boot XP, you are joking mine, can run in 2 minutes on my rig.
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;41677827]I watched her download it from the Google homepage. I was sat next to her :v:[/QUOTE]
Then she probably had "standard" access.
[QUOTE=Durrsly;41668795]It actually was used up until 2008.[/QUOTE]
I guess that would explain why a machine at a hospital I volunteered at had what looked like the Win3.1 UI a couple years ago.
[QUOTE=alx12345;41673929]Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os[/QUOTE]
It's not safe to use anymore. Developers are beginning to end XP support. No more patches means more vulnerabilities. More vulnerabilities means you're more likely to have sensitive information stolen.
The upside to having Windows 7 Professional is that you get to use the downloadable Windows XP Mode.
[url]http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/install-and-use-windows-xp-mode-in-windows-7[/url]
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;41678234]The upside to having Windows 7 Professional is that you get to use the downloadable Windows XP Mode.
[url]http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/install-and-use-windows-xp-mode-in-windows-7[/url][/QUOTE]
Until you upgrade to windows 8. Which you probably will eventually.
[img]http://puu.sh/3Qgfi/18b5f16d8f.png[/img]
Opinion = News?
The only reason I really liked XP is because compared to Vista, 7, and 8, there are so many customization choices.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41672680]i really need to make a webpage with everything bad about 8 so i can link users to that instead of typing some points out.
basically, my problem(and gaben's problem, and businesses' problems) with it is productivity. it puts emphasis on a fullscreen app, instead of "windows", as the name implies. lets say i have a GIF with text in it and i'm writing it down in notepad. the default for GIFs is the photos app, and windows photo viewer does not appear in the list in "open with...". and because the photo viewer isnt even a program, you have to look up some obscure DLL and the command to open a file with it, and add that to 2 places in the registry. what this leads to is using the photos app, and then alt-tab to notepad, write what you remember, alt-tab to photos, wait 0.5 seconds for "pretty-looking transition" to finish, look at photo, and repeat. in windows 1-7, you place the windows side by side, and write it down as you look at it. [B]This is the very principle that windows is founded on[/B], and why businesses use it.
now, of course i can spend the 2 hours to figure out how to fix it in windows 8, and 30 mins to tweak it on each subsequent machine, but that's just fan-fucking tastic when my college chooses to switch to win8, and every machine resets to default settings when you log out.
plus, certain games(dead rising 2) do not work with windows 8 because GFWL. and, XP mode no longer works.
argument: but, windows 8 has metro!
for the majority of users, metro is not any reason to switch, because it is awful.
argument: well, if you don't like metro, you can just disable it with start8. i conclude that you simply are too stubborn to adapt to new technologies.
why waste $100 and lots of time just to make win8 function like win7, when 7 is cheaper, and is more functional than a tweak?
as for XP users, the reason not to upgrade to win7 is just because they have no need, and they haven't used win7 enough that they have a want for it. win1-winxp sp2 had stability issues, giving users the need to upgrade, and win7 has more features, but those features don't make XP users "need" to upgrade. as far as i'm concerned, XP is still a modern OS because it is just as stable and functional as windows 7, and superior to windows 8.
and windows 8 is the new OS X.[/QUOTE]
start > "computer" > enter
file dialogue opens
browse to GIF/file you want to open
right click > open with
or if you want an easy way to flick through pictures.... right click > preview (that opens them in the Windows Photo Viewer you wanted)
then you want to open notepad?
start > "notepad" > enter
Oh no I have two windows open how will I get these two windows to be open at the same time?
select notepad window, hold start key and hit left arrow!
Oh no I have the preview window which is open now I can't see it!!11
select preview window, hold start key and hit right arrow!
[B]W O W!!!!!!!!!!!!![/B]
The metro start menu bullshit is there if you "really" want to use (i.e. you have a touchscreen or something stupid). If you are serious about desktop productivity you would not use it for the tasks you have outlined, the normal windows shit is 100000x better [B]and Windows 8 gives you this always.[/B]
The Photos app etc are for grandma to use; you don't have to use them.
I've used Mac OS since version 6 I think, so I know how that OS has developed--Windows 8 is nothing like Mac OS X at all. It is a far inferior operating system for performing lots of operations on files (arguably Linux would be the best for most things).
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41674084]There's no hunting through folders any more, no tiny ass items (they are about 20px tall in the Start Menu) to click and miss, just a massive amount of fairly large tiles, with a greater number near your cursor at any given point in time.[/QUOTE]
You can also hold CTRL + mouse wheel to scale the zoom in most windows now. It works really great.
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41678257]Until you upgrade to windows 8. Which you probably will eventually.
[img]http://puu.sh/3Qgfi/18b5f16d8f.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Yeah, cause if you get Windows 8 Pro you get Hyper-V which can mount and use the VHD from the XP Mode installer with no hassle.
I'm not sure on the legality of it, but it works.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41677829]I expect it relies on ClearType and the DirectX font renderer, where Firefox and shit use GDI if I recall. Windows has never really been great at font rendering (or DPI scaling, or general scaling).[/QUOTE]
IE9+ and Firefox 4+ both use DirectWrite if they can (Which is why they render text so nicely), Chrome is just now moving to DirectWrite (and Opera to Blink, so it'll have it as well), so the only browser still using GDI will soon be Safari (If that's even updated by Apple still)
Apparently Office 2013 uses DirectWrite as well, so Microsoft is finally starting to use the API in more things.
[QUOTE=Quark:;41656132]I'm sticking with Windows XP for a bit longer because I like Windows XP.
All of my software works on my OS, all of my games work on my OS, and so on. I haven't run into anything barring me from using anything that I wanted to use. That being said, I do plan on upgrading eventually, just not soon.
I've been using Windows XP since it was released and I've liked using it. I take care of my computer so it's never slow, I don't download software from YouTube videos about game hacks and I know what sites not to browse so I don't have security issues, etc.
I don't understand why people bandwagon on the anti-XP road. If I'm using XP it doesn't affect you. You can argue that you have to support my OS, but that's not true. If you don't support my OS then I won't use your software. It's that simple.
I [I]am[/I] excited for an upgrade though, as soon as I've got the funds and the motivation. :quagmire:[/QUOTE]
Speaking as a programmer, there are a few reasons why people sticking to very old things is bad for us. Let me give you an example of how this affects us all: Internet Explorer 8.
I am currently working as a web developer. We're converting our XHTML ASP.NET templates to HTML5 ASP.NET templates (using [URL="http://wet-boew.github.io/wet-boew/index-eng.html"]WET[/URL], which is actually a nice open source framework for HTML5 web design). Now HTML5/ASP.NET don't play too well together to begin with, but that's another discussion. The issue is that the main browser we use in Government of Canada is IE8. Yes, that's right, [I]IE8[/I]. And apparently, so does [URL="http://theie8countdown.com/"]10% of the rest of the world[/URL]. IE8 was made in a time when men were men, hairy chests were a good thing, and microsoft browsers didn't know what "internet standards" even meant. It not being HTML5 compatible is understandable; it not being compatible with just about everything else is not.
We have different CSS, javascript, and sometimes even HTML just to handle the stupidity of IE8. And we have no choice, considering that even in North America, 11% of people are using this shitty browser. So even as we build our sites to play nice with small screens (mobile), have really cool new features, and just generally be better sites (both for us as devs and for the end user), we have to constantly spend hours and hours of our time making sure IE8 works too. Hours we could be spending developing and improving functionality, making the site look and flow better, etc. I wish IE8 could just vanish and we could stop wasting man hours on it. Many commercial sites have stopped supporting it completely and more will follow. I hope we do too.
As a previous poster said, sometimes those ancient systems are there for a good reason. For most users however, support of aging architecture is holding us all back. Have you ever thought or felt that consoles are often holding gaming back? (especially evident in cross platform games) This is the same idea really. XP isn't doing as much damage as consoles are but we really need people to leave the platform behind, it's time to move on.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41674038]-angry posting without reading-
As for "Open with" not showing Photo Viewer, it did for me, are you sure you aren't making mountains out of molehills here?[/QUOTE]
not sure if it was a GIF or BMP, or some other format, but in my experience with win8 there is at least one image filetype not registered with photo viewer. [URL=http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-pictures/how-to-set-windows-photo-viewer-as-default-program/10e4f6f8-9230-4109-8f87-50a06ec63649]at least 1 other person has the same problem[/URL], but i also had no preview button.
now apparently since i'm dismissing windows 8, can you give me a reason that makes me want to:
shell out 100 bucks(although in my case i do have it for free)
buy start8
lose my ability to play deadrising 2
get rid of XP mode
spend 5-30 minutes to disable metro completely
set all of my default programs back to their windowed counterparts
install an OS
switch my computer to UEFI so that installing ubuntu is harder(i do have a BIOS setting for this which is nice)
break my cisco vpn client,
and -possibly- break PPjoy?
good reasons i've found: the file transfer prompt and dialog is smarter when asking me things, and has a progress bar,
"PC settings" is an amazing feature that needs to exist on every device,
the task manager works better,
and that once every year when i need to reboot i'll save 10 seconds of my time.
and in the case of upgrading from XP, i would get in addition:
UAC
a directX update that actually matters
better file organization(documents and settings has been changed to user)
virtualization
and lose:
a non-bloated control panel
DirectX 7, which leads to an unplayable civilization:call to power, and serious graphical issues in age of empires 2
not having virtualization
there are good reasons, but they just aren't good enough.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;41681681]fuck IE8[/QUOTE]
now imagine that microsoft made a new shitty interface designed for phones, and in 10 years some people will still use it, and you still have to make compatible "apps" for it.
in fact it sounds like if they never released IE8 in the first place you wouldn't have this problem.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;41681681]Speaking as a programmer, there are a few reasons why people sticking to very old things is bad for us. Let me give you an example of how this affects us all: Internet Explorer 8.
I am currently working as a web developer. We're converting our XHTML ASP.NET templates to HTML5 ASP.NET templates (using [URL="http://wet-boew.github.io/wet-boew/index-eng.html"]WET[/URL], which is actually a nice open source framework for HTML5 web design). Now HTML5/ASP.NET don't play too well together to begin with, but that's another discussion. The issue is that the main browser we use in Government of Canada is IE8. Yes, that's right, [I]IE8[/I]. And apparently, so does [URL="http://theie8countdown.com/"]10% of the rest of the world[/URL]. IE8 was made in a time when men were men, hairy chests were a good thing, and microsoft browsers didn't know what "internet standards" even meant. It not being HTML5 compatible is understandable; it not being compatible with just about everything else is not.
We have different CSS, javascript, and sometimes even HTML just to handle the stupidity of IE8. And we have no choice, considering that even in North America, 11% of people are using this shitty browser. So even as we build our sites to play nice with small screens (mobile), have really cool new features, and just generally be better sites (both for us as devs and for the end user), we have to constantly spend hours and hours of our time making sure IE8 works too. Hours we could be spending developing and improving functionality, making the site look and flow better, etc. I wish IE8 could just vanish and we could stop wasting man hours on it. Many commercial sites have stopped supporting it completely and more will follow. I hope we do too.
As a previous poster said, sometimes those ancient systems are there for a good reason. For most users however, support of aging architecture is holding us all back. Have you ever thought or felt that consoles are often holding gaming back? (especially evident in cross platform games) This is the same idea really. XP isn't doing as much damage as consoles are but we really need people to leave the platform behind, it's time to move on.[/QUOTE]
As a programmer [I]myself[/I], I think you're exaggerating. A lot.
I'm a web developer as well as a software developer. You act like IE8 is the only browser that works on Windows XP or something. I use Aurora and I've [I]never[/I] encountered a (modern) website that doesn't function or render properly. An "ancient" system does [I]not[/I] mean an ancient browser. Your argument isn't very valid because you're implying that everyone using XP is an old dolt, while this is only about..85% :v:
I also know that it's not difficult [I]at all[/I] to support Windows XP in most cases. It's not holding anyone back basically 90% of the time. The rest of that 10% might be someone directly using a Windows Vista/7/8-only API call or something, which isn't the greatest thing to do anyways - if you're a paid programmer, you should be writing your own code.
I'm not trying to say that everyone should be using XP, mind you. If you want to upgrade, do it. But don't try to force others who like their OS to ditch it just because you don't want to write a few more lines of code.
[QUOTE=Quark:;41681753]As a programmer [I]myself[/I], I think you're exaggerating. A lot.
I'm a web developer as well as a software developer. You act like IE8 is the only browser that works on Windows XP or something. I use Aurora and I've [I]never[/I] encountered a (modern) website that doesn't function or render properly. An "ancient" system does [I]not[/I] mean an ancient browser. Your argument isn't very valid because you're implying that everyone using XP is an old dolt, while this is only about..85% :v:
I also know that it's not difficult [I]at all[/I] to support Windows XP in most cases. It's not holding anyone back basically 90% of the time. The rest of that 10% might be someone directly using a Windows Vista/7/8-only API call or something, which isn't the greatest thing to do anyways - if you're a paid programmer, you should be writing your own code.
I'm not trying to say that everyone should be using XP, mind you. If you want to upgrade, do it. But don't try to force others who like their OS to ditch it just because you don't want to write a few more lines of code.[/QUOTE]
i think his argument was more that people shouldn't be stubborn, and need to upgrade, because until that happens we are wasting alot of time.
note: this has nothing to do with my views on win7/win8, at no point should you assume i agree
From Steam Survey:
Computers with DX10/11 compatible GPU and OS:
26.47% are DX10, 62.21% are DX11 - 11.32% or less are DX9
7.8% of users are on XP
Yet we are still seeing games coming primarily in DX9. I would wager a guess and say that likely has more to do with the consoles than it has to do with XP, but those are the numbers, and if you consider how much work goes into making sites IE8 compatible for just 10% of users, it's not impossible that XP is doing some damage here too.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41681786]i think his argument was more that people shouldn't be stubborn, and need to upgrade, because until that happens we are wasting alot of time.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is wasting a lot of time. It's not wasting time if you're making your product available to [I]more[/I] people. If it's available to [I]more[/I] people then [I]more[/I] people will buy it and you will make [I]more[/I] money.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;41681910]
From Steam Survey:
Computers with DX10/11 compatible GPU and OS:
26.47% are DX10, 62.21% are DX11 - 11.32% or less are DX9
7.8% of users are on XP
Yet we are still seeing games coming primarily in DX9. I would wager a guess and say that likely has more to do with the consoles than it has to do with XP, but those are the numbers, and [B]if you consider how much work goes into making sites IE8 compatible for just 10% of users[/B], it's not impossible that XP is doing some damage here too.[/QUOTE]
Bolded bit: Why aren't web developers writing code that tells IE8 users that your website isn't designed for older, less advanced browsers, and recommending they use something modern and advanced?
Other bit: XP isn't doing [I]any[/I] damage. Either the developer writes a bit more code to make it work fine on XP and, in turn, they get more money than they would've if they hadn't [I]or[/I] they just tell the user, "We don't like your OS. Upgrade to play our software," and they miss out on customers.
Everyone seems to hop on some bandwagon that implies that XP is holding the entire world back because it's impossible to make software/websites compatible with it (when it's really, really easy) and due to this, the technological age will never advance.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41681702]not sure if it was a GIF or BMP, or some other format, but in my experience with win8 there is at least one image filetype not registered with photo viewer. [URL=http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-pictures/how-to-set-windows-photo-viewer-as-default-program/10e4f6f8-9230-4109-8f87-50a06ec63649]at least 1 other person has the same problem[/URL], but i also had no preview button.
now apparently since i'm dismissing windows 8, can you give me a reason that makes me want to:
shell out 100 bucks(although in my case i do have it for free)
buy start8
lose my ability to play deadrising 2
get rid of XP mode
spend 5-30 minutes to disable metro completely
set all of my default programs back to their windowed counterparts
install an OS
switch my computer to UEFI so that installing ubuntu is harder(i do have a BIOS setting for this which is nice)
break my cisco vpn client,
and -possibly- break PPjoy?
good reasons i've found: the file transfer prompt and dialog is smarter when asking me things, and has a progress bar,
"PC settings" is an amazing feature that needs to exist on every device,
the task manager works better,
and that once every year when i need to reboot i'll save 10 seconds of my time.
and in the case of upgrading from XP, i would get in addition:
UAC
a directX update that actually matters
better file organization(documents and settings has been changed to user)
virtualization
and lose:
a non-bloated control panel
DirectX 7, which leads to an unplayable civilization:call to power, and serious graphical issues in age of empires 2
not having virtualization
there are good reasons, but they just aren't good enough.
now imagine that microsoft made a new shitty interface designed for phones, and in 10 years some people will still use it, and you still have to make compatible "apps" for it.
in fact it sounds like if they never released IE8 in the first place you wouldn't have this problem.[/QUOTE]
why is getting rid of metro completely so important to you, it works better than fine. that's like the most time consuming step as well
and no metro app except the photo viewer opens things by default afaik
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41684563]why is getting rid of metro completely so important to you, it works better than fine. that's like the most time consuming step as well
and no metro app except the photo viewer opens things by default afaik[/QUOTE]
metro is impractical and unproductive. the slideshow buttons are huge and yet [b]have no descriptive text[/b], scrolling sideways with a vertical scrollwheel is unintuitive, dragging your mouse to scroll is slow and awful, icons are created automatically for every EXE that exists, when it should only do so when you ask for one to be created, the context menu [b]appears at the lower part of the screen, instead of next to your cursor[/b] and also has huge buttons, slideshow icons make you wait for 3 seconds until the slide switches to a picture with the name of the app, and they are distracting when you're looking for a different icon, categorizing things in there is pretty awful as it makes it no longer a grid layout(as in, that category is a weird number of spaces away from its neighbor), [b]folders cannot be opened in metro[/b], only linked to and opened in explorer, the number of tiles that can fit on one screen is so tiny that you have to scroll to drag something [url=http://youtu.be/PZ865pNosRw]as seen in this video i just looked up to see if folders work[/url], and the context menu lacks the number of options that exist in the desktop context menu.
there is NO possible way you can argue that metro is a practical interface, and i recommend you don't try. what i did ask, however, was why should i switch to win8?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;41681910]From Steam Survey:
Yet we are still seeing games coming primarily in DX9. I would wager a guess and say that likely has more to do with the consoles than it has to do with XP, but those are the numbers, and if you consider how much work goes into making sites IE8 compatible for just 10% of users, it's not impossible that XP is doing some damage here too.[/QUOTE]
one more reason:
in the case of shitty GPUs, DX9 runs much faster than DX10 and 11. DX9 has all the necessary features for a good looking 3d game, and runs fast, whereas DX8 is missing a few important things. DX10 and 11 do have graphical improvements, but nothing in DX9 will really lower the quality of a game. i even had a laptop from early 2012 with a GPU that ran way better in saints row DX9 over saints row DX11.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41685786]metro is impractical and unproductive. the slideshow buttons are huge and yet [b]have no descriptive text[/b], scrolling sideways with a vertical scrollwheel is unintuitive, dragging your mouse to scroll is slow and awful, icons are created automatically for every EXE that exists, when it should only do so when you ask for one to be created, the context menu [b]appears at the lower part of the screen, instead of next to your cursor[/b] and also has huge buttons, slideshow icons make you wait for 3 seconds until the slide switches to a picture with the name of the app, and they are distracting when you're looking for a different icon, categorizing things in there is pretty awful as it makes it no longer a grid layout(as in, that category is a weird number of spaces away from its neighbor), [b]folders cannot be opened in metro[/b], only linked to and opened in explorer, the number of tiles that can fit on one screen is so tiny that you have to scroll to drag something [url=http://youtu.be/PZ865pNosRw]as seen in this video i just looked up to see if folders work[/url], and the context menu lacks the number of options that exist in the desktop context menu.
there is NO possible way you can argue that metro is a practical interface, and i recommend you don't try. what i did ask, however, was why should i switch to win8?[/QUOTE]
It's really not that unintuitive if you aren't already stuck in your ways or being purposefully retarded.
You see big picture of thing you want. You click big picture. Thing open!
Scrolling horizontally makes sense considering we use wide screen monitors today, it would be nice to scroll vertically, but it's not a requirement at all. The tiles do have descriptive text, as much as any start menu icon ever did at least! The name of the program for a tile is visible as either text, or the graphic (assuming the developer stuck to the guidelines). I don't even know why you're complaining about the scroll wheel scrolling, it's hardly unintuitive at all, you scroll, it scrolls!
You seem to think this menu is meant to be a desktop, it's not, it's meant to be a quickly accessible menu of short-cuts, it works amazingly for that purpose. I've yet to see any hard evidence from you proving otherwise, merely anecdotes and shit.
But going by the last sentence in this quote, you aren't ever going to change your mind. So you're choosing to be a fucking moron about it instead! Good work! That'll show MS how they suck!
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41686029]It's really not that unintuitive if you aren't already stuck in your ways or being purposefully retarded.
[/quote]
again, a vertical scrollwheel should move things vertically, not horizontally. being used to older ways has nothing to do with it.
[quote]
You see big picture of thing you want. You click big picture. Thing open!
Scrolling horizontally makes sense considering we use wide screen monitors today,[/quote]
it does not. in fact it never was, since screens have always been wider than their height. the reason for this is that when you scroll, its because you haven't found the item on screen that you are looking for, and you can get rid of what currently exists on it. with a wide screen, if you were to scroll once: vertically, lets say you can make 16 new items appear. on that same screen, sideways scrolling only allows 9 new items to appear.
[quote] it would be nice to scroll vertically, but it's not a requirement at all.[/quote]
please explain?
[quote] The tiles do have descriptive text, as much as any start menu icon ever did at least![/quote][img]http://d2o0t5hpnwv4c1.cloudfront.net/1048_windows/win8_metro_start.jpg[/img]
what the hell is 5? what the hell is the Q thing at the bottom left? what the hell is the thing at the bottom right? it says tube rider i think but that was not easy to read. i would also like to add that text is very small compared to the size of the icon, also not a good thing.[quote] The name of the program for a tile is visible as either text, or the graphic (assuming the developer stuck to the guidelines). I don't even know why you're complaining about the scroll wheel scrolling, it's hardly unintuitive at all, you scroll, it scrolls![/quote]
that's not the meaning of unintuitive[quote]
You seem to think this menu is meant to be a desktop, it's not, it's meant to be a quickly accessible menu of short-cuts, it works amazingly for that purpose. I've yet to see any hard evidence from you proving otherwise, merely anecdotes and shit.[/quote]
my desktop is a quickly accessible menu of shortcuts. i expect my one and only quickly accessible menu of shortcuts to be my desktop, and metro fails at that.
[quote]
But going by the last sentence in this quote, you aren't ever going to change your mind. So you're choosing to be a fucking moron about it instead! Good work! That'll show MS how they suck![/QUOTE]
i consider myself a very logical and productive person, and i was even excited about win8 before i used it. if switching to win8 made logical sense, then i can be convinced of it. furthermore, you say that my last sentence declares i will never change my mind. i simply said metro was a bad interface in my last sentence. are you implying that windows 8 has nothing to offer aside from metro?
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41686299]:words::words::words::words::words::words:[/QUOTE]
That's a screenshot of the developer preview start screen.
Please tell me if you don't understand any of the icons here.
[img]http://puu.sh/3RZDS/5e9f337a91.jpg[/img]
Or how about here
[t]http://puu.sh/3RZEQ/6f3a4632d5.png[/t]
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41686299][img]http://d2o0t5hpnwv4c1.cloudfront.net/1048_windows/win8_metro_start.jpg[/img]
what the hell is 5? what the hell is the Q thing at the bottom left? what the hell is the thing at the bottom right? it says tube rider i think but that was not easy to read. i would also like to add that text is very small compared to the size of the icon, also not a good thing.
that's not the meaning of unintuitive[/QUOTE]
In the case of this, they are the fucking [B]branding[/B] of an app, if you can't recognise the branding of an app you installed you should stop using computers. The branding is enough to tell you what the app is, whether it be the full name (in the case of Tube Rider (which is really easy to read if you aren't a sheltered blind man)), or the logo (in the case of whatever that 5 is). The font size is reasonable when you are actually using it at the native resolution, that image is scaled down, of course it's hard to read. You're nitpicking at this point.
If your desktop is your "quickly accesable menu", why the fuck do you even care about the Start Screen or even the Start Menu? Neither are your desktop, which as you said yourself is your menu.
For someone so "logical" and "productive", you sure are wasting a lot of time arguing invalid arguments on an internet forum aren't you? Metro as a design language is pretty great, the Start Screen as a menu is pretty nice, it's fairly logical, works well on both tablets and desktops/ laptops (laptops also have the benefit of touchpad gestures here). It shows more content than the Start Menu in a more readable and accessible way, it's more interesting, it's still in its infancy so it will change in certain ways, but it is in no way bad.
learn to computer
Edit: Oh boy, blackbird is here to carpet dumb any one who has a differing opinion rather than try and actually argue! Fuck this forum needs to remove ratings again, it was so nice those few years ago when they vanished.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.