[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39064905]This point has been debated a bazillion times - just read any thread about Windows 8 and you'll get your counter-arguments. And I'll just ask whether you've actually tried it out for more than 5 minutes or not.[/QUOTE]
And the counter arguments get counter arguments.
Fact is, win8 is too much of a radical change GUI wise, and the largest usersbases of Windows are either tech illiterate people, or professionals who'd do everything to keep their workflow as fast as possible, with minimal fuzz and unwarranted change.
[I]"one size fits all"[/I] approach doesn't work with the differences between keyboard+mouse & touchscreen.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39064971]And the counter arguments get counter arguments.
Fact is, win8 is too much of a radical change GUI wise, and the largest usersbases of Windows are either tech illiterate people, or professionals who'd do everything to keep their workflow as fast as possible, with minimal fuzz and unwarranted change.
[I]"one size fits all"[/I] approach doesn't work with the differences between keyboard+mouse & touchscreen.[/QUOTE]
I think you missed the part where I asked "have you actually made an honest attempt of using it?"; juts looking at an UI and dismissing it as bad is stupid, whether you're right or not. Try it out yourself instead of going out on assumptions and other's opinions.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39065049]I think you missed the part where I asked "have you actually made an honest attempt of using it?"; juts looking at an UI and dismissing it as bad is stupid, whether you're right or not. Try it out yourself instead of going out on assumptions and other's opinions.[/QUOTE]
I've used it, and I find it slow and disconnected. Items copied in metro don't paste to the desktop; there's no way to 'drag and drop' from the desktop to metro either. The entire UI is an unconnected mess. It feels like I've got multiple personality disorder. I honestly, honestly hope that Windows 8 stays a flop, so Microsoft does not repeat this utter mistake again.
Of course, when you have the new head of the Windows development team coming out saying every PC should be touchscreen, I don't really see any hope for Microsoft's future. Touchscreens are cool and all, but they're ultimately slower and require more movement, action, and screen real estate than keyboard and mouse.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39065049]I think you missed the part where I asked "have you actually made an honest attempt of using it?"; juts looking at an UI and dismissing it as bad is stupid, whether you're right or not. Try it out yourself instead of going out on assumptions and other's opinions.[/QUOTE]
I know the whole "You've never tried it so your opinion doesn't matter" argument is popular, but I've actually tried it and it is a bad fit for desktops.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;39065090]I know the whole "You've never tried it so your opinion doesn't matter" argument is popular, but I've actually tried it and it is a bad fit for desktops.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean it's not a proper argument. I won't say you're wrong, 'cause opinions differ and you've actually tried it out. I just don't see how his opinion is any more valid just because you tried it, so it's a moot point.
Still, I'll be damned if I don't ask for how long you tried it out. I genuinely think that it's a good OS, and most people that have tried it out for more than a few minutes like it as well.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065063]I've used it, and I find it slow and disconnected. Items copied in metro don't paste to the desktop; there's no way to 'drag and drop' from the desktop to metro either. The entire UI is an unconnected mess. It feels like I've got multiple personality disorder. I honestly, honestly hope that Windows 8 stays a flop, so Microsoft does not repeat this utter mistake again.
Of course, when you have the new head of the Windows development team coming out saying every PC should be touchscreen, I don't really see any hope for Microsoft's future. Touchscreens are cool and all, but they're ultimately slower and require more movement, action, and screen real estate than keyboard and mouse.[/QUOTE]
You're really taking that quote out of context - she's not saying that they should be touchscreen only, but rather that the touchscreen should compliment the mouse and keyboard, the same way the mouse complimented the keyboard back in the 80's or whatever. I don't see how that opinion is dumb in the slightest.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
Also, we're looking at the internet access share here - so you'll have to take into account the overall number of computers out there. Sure, Windows 8 might not be taking up share quite as fast as Vista, but sales numbers are probably higher.
[QUOTE=Daniel M;39064340]While I do think that Metro could have been integrated better (and I'm sure it will in Windows Blue this year), if your eyes are fixated on the lower left hand corner of the screen, why not just make it full screen? It isn't like you could be multitasking while the menu is open because once you click off of it, it closes.[/QUOTE]For me seeing my screen while in start menu is vital. I can put something to render/compile/monitor server/etc while I look for what I need in my start menu in the corner. Fullscreen start menu makes me feel like I'm losing control since I can no longer see what I could before. The whole point of start menu is/was that it contained all my used stuff in small window that does not interfere or break workflow. IMO metro is poorly designed for computer use and should have "compact" mode by default without me having to install some 3rd party junk.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39065603]Doesn't mean it's not a proper argument. I won't say you're wrong, 'cause opinions differ and you've actually tried it out. I just don't see how his opinion is any more valid just because you tried it, so it's a moot point.
Still, I'll be damned if I don't ask for how long you tried it out. I genuinely think that it's a good OS, and most people that have tried it out for more than a few minutes like it as well.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
You're really taking that quote out of context - she's not saying that they should be touchscreen only, but rather that the touchscreen should compliment the mouse and keyboard, the same way the mouse complimented the keyboard back in the 80's or whatever. I don't see how that opinion is dumb in the slightest.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
Also, we're looking at the internet access share here - so you'll have to take into account the overall number of computers out there. Sure, Windows 8 might not be taking up share quite as fast as Vista, but sales numbers are probably higher.[/QUOTE]
Sales numbers are a moot point because they take OEM into account. (And therefore unsold and unused devices sitting on store shelves)
And obviously I got my point across fine since you nailed it. Why should touch-screen complement something that already works better?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;39065700]For me seeing my screen while in start menu is vital. I can put something to render/compile/monitor server/etc while I look for what I need in my start menu in the corner. Fullscreen start menu makes me feel like I'm losing control since I can no longer see what I could before. The whole point of start menu is/was that it contained all my used stuff in small window that does not interfere or break workflow. IMO metro is poorly designed for computer use and should have "compact" mode by default without me having to install some 3rd party junk.[/QUOTE]
for me it reduced the time i spend looking for things to almost nothing, so i really don't mind it
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065729]Sales numbers are a moot point because they take OEM into account. (And therefore unsold and unused devices sitting on store shelves)
And obviously I got my point across fine since you nailed it. Why should touch-screen complement something that already works better?[/QUOTE]
Now that's just putting words in my mouth, and your argument makes me question your intelligence. Why can't we have a touchscreen while also having a keyboard and mouse? Why should a mouse complement something that already works better? Because it's complementing it, not replacing it. It's a bad argument.
And OEMs don't just purchase licenses like there's no tomorrow, and if they did, wouldn't they have done the same with 7 and Vista? Your logic is faltering.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39065865]Now that's just putting words in my mouth, and your argument makes me question your intelligence. Why can't we have a touchscreen while also having a keyboard and mouse? Why should a mouse complement something that already works better? Because it's complementing it, not replacing it. It's a bad argument.
And OEMs don't just purchase licenses like there's no tomorrow, and if they did, wouldn't they have done the same with 7 and Vista? Your logic is faltering.[/QUOTE]
They do. (Almost) every new PC built right now has a Windows 8 OEM license applied to it. That's why this comparison uses web-usage. If it only used web-usage for 8, and OEM sales for Vista/7 there would be a problem. Hell, there's still unsold PCs that have Windows 7 licenses on them. You're putting words in my mouth.
Now also, I'm not implying you can't use touch screen along with KB/Mouse, I'm implying you SHOULDN'T. What's a single good reason for having a touch screen on a desktop PC? Can you think of one?
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065900]That's why this comparison uses web-usage. If it only used web-usage for 8, and OEM for Vista/7 there would be a problem. You're putting words in my mouth.
Now also, I'm not implying you can't use touch screen along with KB/Mouse, I'm implying you SHOULDN'T. What's a single good reason for having a touch screen on a desktop PC? Can you think of one?[/QUOTE]
Digital finger painting
[QUOTE=ILY;39065915]Digital finger painting[/QUOTE]
oh fucking boy gotta have that shit
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065900]They do. (Almost) every new PC built right now has a Windows 8 OEM license applied to it. That's why this comparison uses web-usage. If it only used web-usage for 8, and OEM sales for Vista/7 there would be a problem. Hell, there's still unsold PCs that have Windows 7 licenses on them. You're putting words in my mouth.
Now also, I'm not implying you can't use touch screen along with KB/Mouse, I'm implying you SHOULDN'T. What's a single good reason for having a touch screen on a desktop PC? Can you think of one?[/QUOTE]
b-but
without a touchscreen I don't have a reason to cover my monitor in smudges [IMG]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/frown.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065900]That's why this comparison uses web-usage. If it only used web-usage for 8, and OEM for Vista/7 there would be a problem. You're putting words in my mouth.
Now also, I'm not implying you can't use touch screen along with KB/Mouse, I'm implying you SHOULDN'T. What's a single good reason for having a touch screen on a desktop PC? Can you think of one?[/QUOTE]
Because in many cases it's nice to have a touchscreen as well? Especially on laptops - ever tried out the XPS 12? It's a dream to use. Remember, desktop PCs aren't the majority of the market anymore, it's laptops.
And yeah, I understand why it's using web usage, but exactly what OSs are registered here? Is it also taking OSs like Android and iOS into account? Because they have a much larger presence than back when windows 7 - and especially Vista - launched. How many licenses did Windows 7 sell? 500 million by now? There's a lot more computers out there, and comparing Windows 8 to Vista seems like a stupid move to me. Vista was launched back in '06, and the market is very different.
Is Windows 7 a failure since it doesn't have the market share of Windows 95 3 years after launch? [url]http://news.cnet.com/Windows-95-remains-most-popular-operating-system/2100-1040_3-228773.html[/url]
Not really, since the market is very different. How about XP?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39065968]Because in many cases it's nice to have a touchscreen as well? Especially on laptops - ever tried out the XPS 12? It's a dream to use. Remember, desktop PCs aren't the majority of the market anymore, it's laptops.
And yeah, I understand why it's using web usage, but exactly what OSs are registered here? Is it also taking OSs like Android and iOS into account? Because they have a much larger presence than back when windows 7 - and especially Vista - launched. How many licenses did Windows 7 sell? 500 million by now? There's a lot more computers out there, and comparing Windows 8 to Vista seems like a stupid move to me. Vista was launched back in '06, and the market is very different.
Is Windows 7 a failure since it doesn't have the market share of Windows 95 3 years after launch? [URL]http://news.cnet.com/Windows-95-remains-most-popular-operating-system/2100-1040_3-228773.html[/URL]
Not really, since the market is very different. How about XP?[/QUOTE]
[I]Why[/I] is it nice to have a touchscreen as well? What purpose does it serve? Also remember that Microsoft's key demographic has always been business. Are you going to tell me major businesses no longer use desktops?
Your other argument I'm not even going to touch. What a crock.
What advantages do multitouch gestures have over a general keybind?
touchscreens also have a lot of delay, they're really useless for any actual work
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
typing on one is also really shit
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39066009][i]Why[/i] is it nice to have a touchscreen as well? What purpose does it serve?
Your other argument I'm not even going to touch. What a crock.[/QUOTE]
Well that's a stupid question - why is it nice to have a mouse? because it's convenient in many cases? Do I really have to explain this like you're some kind of retard? Sometimes it's just natural to reach out and touch the screen, instead of using a touchpad that in most cases suck ass.
Just got on the site, could seem like I'm wrong after all - I'm sorry. Still, there's helluva lot more computers now than there were 6 years ago, so even if we don't include mobile OS's, the Vista market share will be saturated.
GoDong, I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but the touchscreen application is absolutely shit for desktop users. It [I]maybe[/I] works on laptops, but not desktops, and as much as I like Metro there's some clear negligence on the desktop end of things.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39066071]GoDong, I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but the touchscreen application is absolutely shit for desktop users. It [I]maybe[/I] works on laptops, but not desktops, and as much as I like Metro there's some clear negligence on the desktop end of things.[/QUOTE]
I'm arguing laptops, not desktops. I'm pretty sure that I specified that. I won't defend touchscreens on desktops, I haven't found them particularly helpful.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39066086]Am I the only one that really likes the metro apps for casual use?
They are great for picking up my mail on a morning and checking the news and weather, they look a damn site better than any desktop application I've ever seen and accomplish the same tasks 10x quicker.[/QUOTE]
I use one or two apps in metro, I'm not very fond of most of them.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39066057]Well that's a stupid question - why is it nice to have a mouse? because it's convenient in many cases? Do I really have to explain this like you're some kind of retard? Sometimes it's just natural to reach out and touch the screen, instead of using a touchpad that in most cases suck ass.
Just got on the site, could seem like I'm wrong after all - I'm sorry. Still, there's helluva lot more computers now than there were 6 years ago, so even if we don't include mobile OS's, the Vista market share will be saturated.[/QUOTE]
Why dodge the question? I can answer why a mouse is useful; it supplies tactile and quick movements toward VGUI interacting like a keyboard can't. It's very, very good at what it does too.
What does a touchscreen do? Why should I dedicate real estate in applications I make toward fitting your big fat fingers? What does you touching my application gain you that your mouse couldn't serve in a shorter amount of time?
What did the mouse do that the keyboard could not? A lot. What does a touchscreen do that a keyboard and mouse cannot?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39066082]I'm arguing laptops, not desktops. I'm pretty sure that I specified that. I won't defend touchscreens on desktops, I haven't found them particularly helpful.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there is any point in both a touchscreen and a keyboard other than adding to price
seems to be mostly be a gimmick, honestly. touchscreen things only appeal to me in phones for actual dedicated tablets
one that converts is a little different I guess, but unless there is an OS that switches from a non-tablet OS to a tablet one upon the conversion then it's a no for me
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39066086]Am I the only one that really likes the metro apps for casual use?
They are great for picking up my mail on a morning and checking the news and weather, they look a damn site better than any desktop application I've ever seen and accomplish the same tasks 10x quicker.[/QUOTE]
The only one I use is Netflix, and maybe Spotify if they make an app.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39066086]Am I the only one that really likes the metro apps for casual use?
They are great for picking up my mail on a morning and checking the news and weather, they look a damn site better than any desktop application I've ever seen and accomplish the same tasks 10x quicker.[/QUOTE]
They look pretty, but they're about as functional as bricks
this is the real metro demise. It's beautiful, but then I actually tried to use them productively
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;39066109]I don't think there is any point in both a touchscreen and a keyboard other than adding to price
seems to be mostly be a gimmick, honestly. touchscreen things only appeal to me in phones for actual dedicated tablets
one that converts is a little different I guess, but unless there is an OS that switches from a non-tablet OS to a tablet one upon the conversion then it's a no for me[/QUOTE]
And that's how I envisioned Windows 8. Convertibles that switched between dedicated tablet and "desktop" modes would have been fucking awesome.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39066111]The only one I use is Netflix, and maybe Spotify if they make an app.[/QUOTE]
case in point: metro makes for a good 10 foot UI, that's about the only good point I can think of
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39066096]Why dodge the question? I can answer why a mouse is useful; it supplies tactile and quick movements toward VGUI interacting like a keyboard can't. It's very, very good at what it does too.
What does a touchscreen do? Why should I dedicate real estate in applications I make toward fitting your big fat fingers? What does you touching my application gain you that your mouse couldn't serve in a shorter amount of time?
What did the mouse do that the keyboard could not? A lot. What does a touchscreen do that a keyboard and mouse cannot?[/QUOTE]
What has most screen estate: the metro version of IE10 or the desktop version? Yep, that's right, the desktop version. How about scrolling? Zooming? Isn't that infinitely more natural on a touchscreen?
I'm not dodging the question, I'm assuming you're capable of using your brain. Have you seriously never used a touchscreen? Because it sure seems like it.
Since you updated your post, I'll just elaborate a bit more. Was the mouse useful in itself? No, not really - without the right software it was damn near useless. Without the right software a touchscreen is useless as well, but if the software matches, it's a natural extension, just like the mouse is now.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39066115]And that's how I envisioned Windows 8. Convertibles that switched between dedicated tablet and "desktop" modes would have been fucking awesome.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure it's very possible on linux, and probably quite easily
just wait for an alternative windows DE developer to add that function
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;39066121]case in point: metro makes for a good 10 foot UI, that's about the only good point I can think of[/QUOTE]
I also have a Windows RT tablet who I have quite a few more apps installed on, but honestly I don't use a whole lot because the selection is still lackluster and touchscreen gaming is like ramming a nail up my urethra.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39066127]What has most screen estate: the metro version of IE10 or the desktop version? Yep, that's right, the desktop version. How about scrolling? Zooming? Isn't that infinitely more natural on a touchscreen?
I'm not dodging the question, I'm assuming you're capable of using your brain. Have you seriously never used a touchscreen? Because it sure seems like it.[/QUOTE]
That's a faulty comparison. The Metro version of IE isn't designed to be moved around like a window. It's missing many of the multi-tasking features of it's desktop counterpart.
Touch-screens are better because you can make imperfect analog scrolls or zooms? In more time than it'd take to flick the mouse wheel?
What does a touch-screen do that a keyboard or mouse CANNOT? What does it do better?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
