Unnoficial design concept for Windows 9(eiskis.net)
eiskis.net
Unnoficial design concept for Windows 9
http://eiskis.net/windows9
29 comments
> Just NO NO AND NO, I can't be the only one who hates the new Windows interface, I want to be able to place my windows where I want them not be forced to use full screen for everything, or rely on some automated way to place them
Personally I find manual window-management extremely tedious. I want a window-manager to actually manage my windows for me. So on that part, I agree with the statement. That however doesn't mean that any automatic window-management is an improvement simply by being automatic.
There are bad automatic window-managers. The one in Windows 8 can clearly be be categorized as such. That however doesn't mean that all automatic window-management is bad.
On Linux, I like tiling VMs, because that means I no longer have to manage Windows manually, yet I get to remain in control of what I do and how I position my "windows". This is good automatic Window-management.
One day I hope Windows will be able to get there and get something of equal power and usefulness. That is, without throwing all the users not power-users out the Window, because current Linux tiling-VMs are obviously aimed at and created for power-users. User-friendlyness and intuitiveness has been sacrificed in the process.
Personally I find manual window-management extremely tedious. I want a window-manager to actually manage my windows for me. So on that part, I agree with the statement. That however doesn't mean that any automatic window-management is an improvement simply by being automatic.
There are bad automatic window-managers. The one in Windows 8 can clearly be be categorized as such. That however doesn't mean that all automatic window-management is bad.
On Linux, I like tiling VMs, because that means I no longer have to manage Windows manually, yet I get to remain in control of what I do and how I position my "windows". This is good automatic Window-management.
One day I hope Windows will be able to get there and get something of equal power and usefulness. That is, without throwing all the users not power-users out the Window, because current Linux tiling-VMs are obviously aimed at and created for power-users. User-friendlyness and intuitiveness has been sacrificed in the process.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. This "reinvent the classical desktop" trend really annoys me. Traditional desktop environments like Win 95 up to 7 or Gnome 2 are imho closest to the ideal, they have many many years of evolution behind them.
Mistakes that are being made:
1) Thinking that touch is superior to mouse, that touch is the future. That's simply untrue, mouse is quicker and more productive.
2) Focusing on first-time users too much, forgetting experienced users. Example - animations - nice at first, but get annoying quickly.
3) Trying to unify the tablet and the desktop interface. The optimal interface for tablets and for desktops are different.
For me the ideal desktop environment would be:
- take the classical desktop concept
- do a design update (Gnome 2 or Win 7 aren't especially pretty, the design looks outdated)
- add some nice features without changing the whole concept, e.g. some tiling support, useful keyboard shortcuts etc.
Mistakes that are being made:
1) Thinking that touch is superior to mouse, that touch is the future. That's simply untrue, mouse is quicker and more productive.
2) Focusing on first-time users too much, forgetting experienced users. Example - animations - nice at first, but get annoying quickly.
3) Trying to unify the tablet and the desktop interface. The optimal interface for tablets and for desktops are different.
For me the ideal desktop environment would be:
- take the classical desktop concept
- do a design update (Gnome 2 or Win 7 aren't especially pretty, the design looks outdated)
- add some nice features without changing the whole concept, e.g. some tiling support, useful keyboard shortcuts etc.
I am reminded of the Henry Ford quote
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
The design idioms seen in Gnome 2 and Windows 7 are essentially highly refined versions of what existed on the Apple II OS. Personal computers and what we use them for have come a long way since then and it makes sense to redesign the UI to reflect this. Often this means getting your hands dirty and trying new things. Also - first time users are going to be around for longer than experienced users ;)
The design idioms seen in Gnome 2 and Windows 7 are essentially highly refined versions of what existed on the Apple II OS. Personal computers and what we use them for have come a long way since then and it makes sense to redesign the UI to reflect this. Often this means getting your hands dirty and trying new things. Also - first time users are going to be around for longer than experienced users ;)
Yes, this Steve-Jobsian reasoning is exactly what leads to bad UI designs: "People don't know what they want and if they don't like our UI, it's in some way their fault."
I don't have anything against designers trying new things - unless they are trying them on me. For me, Win 8 or Gnome 3 is clearly a downgrade in terms of user experience.
I don't have anything against designers trying new things - unless they are trying them on me. For me, Win 8 or Gnome 3 is clearly a downgrade in terms of user experience.
I think tiling would greatly improve the usability. If windows had tiling and something like dmenu I would be much happier. The start screen sucks, especially if you have a lot of applications that you commonly use. It's impractical to look for a application in the tiles. I know that you can go to the start screen and start typing in the name of the program (sort of like dmenu), but why should you have to go to a pointless screen to do so.
Exactly, and another problem of the start screen is that it's fullscreen - it's distracting when the whole screen changes.
Can't you just use the normal desktop interface? It's still there.
Well not really if you want to use Metro apps.
I have yet to find a single Metro app that's both superior (or even equal to) to an equivalent desktop app, and that justifies having to deal with the start screen and it's dismal multitasking.
Same here. And thus in lack people using TIFKAM apps (The Interface Formerly Known As Metro), we have a self fulfilling prophecy.
Users never arriving to the TIFKAM-scene ensures no developers will bother developing for it.
Users never arriving to the TIFKAM-scene ensures no developers will bother developing for it.
"Manual window management is awful. Windows 8 ditched windows in favor of fullscreen apps."
Wrong. Manual windows management is just what a professional needs. The window manager will never know what is the best position and size for your programming editor/environment. It will never know where is the best position and size for your preferred debug window. And how to place and size your browser windows for API documentation.
Sure, a typical computer user needs only a full-screen browser window. But when you're really trying to get work done, Microsoft's "new" concepts are just wrong.
Wrong. Manual windows management is just what a professional needs. The window manager will never know what is the best position and size for your programming editor/environment. It will never know where is the best position and size for your preferred debug window. And how to place and size your browser windows for API documentation.
Sure, a typical computer user needs only a full-screen browser window. But when you're really trying to get work done, Microsoft's "new" concepts are just wrong.
Manual window management on Windows can be awful. With decent window managers one can hold keys (alt in my case) and then drag or resize windows easily by dragging the mouse. They snap. And you can have more key combos for things like snap to left/right, maximise, minimise, always in front, etc.
Ever since getting used to this (in XFCE), using windows in Windows feels incredibly annoying and infuriating.
Ever since getting used to this (in XFCE), using windows in Windows feels incredibly annoying and infuriating.
Windows 7 onwards has keyboard shortcuts - WinKey + cursors moves the windows to snap to half of the screen (top, bottom, left, right) and learn the Alt-Space-then X to maximise and Alt-Space then R to restore.
If you happy using the mouse, Windows snap to the edges of the screen.
There is also a utility you can get for shortcuts very similar to the Mac OSX ShiftIt tool but I can't remember the name of it!
There are many of them. I use Spectacle. You can move windows to the right / left / top / bottom, maximize it, send it to another monitor, etc..
I like the Ubuntu version where Alt-Space-X does maximize and restore (depending on current state). One shortcut less to learn.
Well, that'd be Win+↑ for maximize and Win+↓ for restore/minimize on Windows (contrary to what your parent writes, there is no built-in shortcut of making a window take up the top half of a screen).
Yes, you're right. It can be awful in Windows. But on the other hand, when I place my windows to their correct locations (on Fluxbox or Win7), it might take weeks or months before I have to relocate them again.
Am i the only one who does not like "touch" on a desktop/laptop.
It is not the revolutionary input method that makes everything magical.
I want to think in boxes (desktops) not a fluid streams of desktop space.
We need something else for the desktop.
We need something else for the desktop.
You seriously come to HN asking if you're the only one who doesn't like Windows 8's interface? I know this isn't your first post, so you're basically just posting a popular opinion phrased as a question in an attempt to reap karma.
Welcome to 2011. Your complaints are now fresh and new again.
Welcome to 2011. Your complaints are now fresh and new again.
It is even less appropriate on a server OS - I have no idea what they were thinking making Windows Server 2012 use the same touch oriented start menu replacement nightmare....
[Having to use a demo VM that has 2012 installed at the moment and I'm finding it incredibly annoying].
[Having to use a demo VM that has 2012 installed at the moment and I'm finding it incredibly annoying].
Been using 8 for about a year and have no problem with the start screen without a touch interface - the workflow is pretty much identical to 7: Press the Windows key and type part of the name of what you want, with the bonus that it's significantly faster at giving results.
If you do end up having to select something in the menu, you now have more space to see what's available and modifying the layout to match your usage is a lot more accessible.
If you do end up having to select something in the menu, you now have more space to see what's available and modifying the layout to match your usage is a lot more accessible.
yeah, but that's not how I use 7. I click the "pinned" icon in the taskbar. (It's not as fast as a keyboard short-cut, but it's good enough.)
"you now have more space to see what's available"
Actually, you don't - on the server I am using there is an (otherwise excellent) Microsoft product installed that prefixes all of it's menu items with the same name so all you see is a number of items with the same logo and "Really long product name...." and to find out which one is which you have to hover the mouse over them, which rather defeats the purpose of the whole exercise.
Actually, you don't - on the server I am using there is an (otherwise excellent) Microsoft product installed that prefixes all of it's menu items with the same name so all you see is a number of items with the same logo and "Really long product name...." and to find out which one is which you have to hover the mouse over them, which rather defeats the purpose of the whole exercise.
So rename them like you would if you would in any previous version. %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu, rename to heart's content. Or right click the tile, Open file location and rename.
It's funny how many times I've read the same reply to criticisms of Windows 8: "Despite appearances, you can still do X".
I wonder how many options will go the way of the shutdown button in Windows 9 - that is, moved entirely.
I wonder how many options will go the way of the shutdown button in Windows 9 - that is, moved entirely.
> Been using 8 for about a year and have no problem with the start screen without a touch interface - the workflow is pretty much identical to 7: Press the Windows key and type part of the name of what you want, with the bonus that it's significantly faster at giving results.
A full-screen menu appearing on top of whatever I am working on completely breaks my flow. It's immensely distracting to me. As a result, I literally never use it. Instead I use Launchy [1] which is well behaved and keeps within the confines of a very small dialogue box.
That doesn't completely fix Windows 8, though - there's still a bunch of touch-orientated stuff that there's no native way to deactivate.
[1] http://www.launchy.net/
A full-screen menu appearing on top of whatever I am working on completely breaks my flow. It's immensely distracting to me. As a result, I literally never use it. Instead I use Launchy [1] which is well behaved and keeps within the confines of a very small dialogue box.
That doesn't completely fix Windows 8, though - there's still a bunch of touch-orientated stuff that there's no native way to deactivate.
[1] http://www.launchy.net/
I find Gnome 3 suffers the same issue. When I'm searching I know what I'm looking for 99% of the time, it's just a glorified accelerator combo, I don't need a full screen full of distractions.
I tend not to be launching much stuff when I'm working - editors, browsers, VMs etc are already open. Plus I have three monitors, and tend to have it opening on the smallest so it doesn't get in the way.
I do think Microsoft should have made it optional - it's obvious this is what people wanted, and it's not like it would have cost them much in development/support. Still, at least there's now a huge bunch of third party software to replace/augment it, most with far greater configurability than the original Start menu.
I do think Microsoft should have made it optional - it's obvious this is what people wanted, and it's not like it would have cost them much in development/support. Still, at least there's now a huge bunch of third party software to replace/augment it, most with far greater configurability than the original Start menu.
I thought, wow, awesome, an Alfred alternative to windows.
- Install
- Type in visualstud... I get CALCULATOR...
- Uninstall...
Launchy has absolutely NOTHING on Windows 8 Key + typing.
- Install
- Type in visualstud... I get CALCULATOR...
- Uninstall...
Launchy has absolutely NOTHING on Windows 8 Key + typing.
Totally agree, I have been using 8 / 8.1 since it's release and really don't miss the start menu, I am forced to use xp quite often and cannot stand it, the amount of times I bring up the start menu up and type to bring up an app and the start menu just does nothing just makes me cry.
I have seen some people put the windows 7 style start menu on win 8 - it just doesn't make sense to me, the world moves on, things change, learn to adapt and life is so much sweeter!
I have seen some people put the windows 7 style start menu on win 8 - it just doesn't make sense to me, the world moves on, things change, learn to adapt and life is so much sweeter!
I imagine what they were thinking is "maybe people shouldn't be logging on to individual servers in order to manage them."
I manage a number of 2012 VMs, and actually log onto them via RDP very rarely.
You should use RSAT on a workstation, or perhaps Powershell and Enter-PSSession (alias: etsn) in order to manage your machines. If you're a masochist you could even use winrs.exe from inside cmd.exe.
I can't think of much you can do with those two tools that you can't do otherwise, unless it involves [random third-party software]. Even with third party software, I don't see a reason people should be logging on to servers often enough that the start screen should be an appreciable problem -- especially since the start screen is likely to have an immediately obvious and clickable 100px*100px "tile" to get to the software you need to.
I manage a number of 2012 VMs, and actually log onto them via RDP very rarely.
You should use RSAT on a workstation, or perhaps Powershell and Enter-PSSession (alias: etsn) in order to manage your machines. If you're a masochist you could even use winrs.exe from inside cmd.exe.
I can't think of much you can do with those two tools that you can't do otherwise, unless it involves [random third-party software]. Even with third party software, I don't see a reason people should be logging on to servers often enough that the start screen should be an appreciable problem -- especially since the start screen is likely to have an immediately obvious and clickable 100px*100px "tile" to get to the software you need to.
I think the Idea is that you wont use the GUI much on server instances. I am working through a Sharepoint MCSE right now. and the Server config and admin, your encouraged to use the Server Manager tool on another computer or the command line. Ideally on most installs the Full GUI is not installed. MS considers it best practice to use the Core install if at all possible. Followed by the Min Gui, and then if necessary the Full GUI.
"I think the Idea is that you wont use the GUI much on server instances"
Yes - but this one is a completely standalone demo VM from Microsoft with a pile of different products installed - so logging in directly and using the Screen Eating Menu From Hell is difficult to avoid.
Yes - but this one is a completely standalone demo VM from Microsoft with a pile of different products installed - so logging in directly and using the Screen Eating Menu From Hell is difficult to avoid.
Having to use a demo VM that has 2012 installed at the moment and I'm finding it incredibly annoying
While Metro/Modern/Whatever is incredible annoying in itself when not on a tablet, having it (which depends on screen-corners) running in a VM which is typically window'ed brings the madness to new dimension.
For minimum frustration, I recommend fullscreen.
While Metro/Modern/Whatever is incredible annoying in itself when not on a tablet, having it (which depends on screen-corners) running in a VM which is typically window'ed brings the madness to new dimension.
For minimum frustration, I recommend fullscreen.
Start8 is $5.
You're definitely not the only one.
Honestly, I feel like it's a break in my momentum and flow of creativity (that really sounds pretentious, but it's true) to move my hands from keyboard to screen. It's not like keyboard and mouse where both forms of input are on the horizontal plane.
I rather liked the idea behind the Nintendo DS where inputs are available on both the horizontal and (semi) vertical plane. If a touchpad can be made sufficiently intuitive and comfortable enough to serve as both keyboard, touchpad and display screen, I'm in.
Honestly, I feel like it's a break in my momentum and flow of creativity (that really sounds pretentious, but it's true) to move my hands from keyboard to screen. It's not like keyboard and mouse where both forms of input are on the horizontal plane.
I rather liked the idea behind the Nintendo DS where inputs are available on both the horizontal and (semi) vertical plane. If a touchpad can be made sufficiently intuitive and comfortable enough to serve as both keyboard, touchpad and display screen, I'm in.
Touch really lends itself to interfacing with objects.
Using a mouse, in particular is a little bit foreign to our natural instincts.
Using a mouse, in particular is a little bit foreign to our natural instincts.
We're already squarely in unnatural territory as soon as an LCD screen is involved.
And where in the entire body of everyday natural instinctively useful objects, are things that respond to and are manipulated by caressing them precisely with just the tips of your fingers? Well, sex obviously, but having sex with a large square piece of glass isn't at all enjoyable.
Kind of explains the popularity of thinkpads' nipple mouse, though.
Kind of explains the popularity of thinkpads' nipple mouse, though.
Exactly this kind of pseudoscientific reasoning is behind the bad UI decisions in Win 8 and Gnome 3.
Agreed! Thankfully there is something else. Ubuntu baby!
Unity is no better IMO. It feels like another counter-intuitive and ultimately awkward (for me) interface. Which is why I'm right now on Linux Mint which ironically has the most "Windows 7-like" post-Win7 UI.
Pretty much, it's another example of the "reinvent the desktop" trend, that is horribly misguided.
This concept looks as if Canonical designed Windows, quite frankly.
If anything, it does borrow elements from the Android interface and modern DEs like Cinnamon.
I'll just stick to my window manager. There's something charming about their raw simplicity compared to the overt modern "glossy minimalist" interfaces of today.
If anything, it does borrow elements from the Android interface and modern DEs like Cinnamon.
I'll just stick to my window manager. There's something charming about their raw simplicity compared to the overt modern "glossy minimalist" interfaces of today.
Am I right in thinking with this design you can only have one app as a point of focus at a time? So assuming I'm doing development, I can't be in my IDE, with a browser open on a particular stack overflow question, while having the app I'm debugging open in front of it all and some other app also in view showing diagnostics?
Instead, I'd have to flick back and forth between the apps like a headless chicken?
[Edit] Actually, take his example apps as a suggestion. He's running VLC to watch star trek, but can't watch it at the same time as say using the browser. In a traditional window set-up, you can just set VLC to stay on top and overlay a portion of the screen while you can continue doing something else (like using the browser).
Although the concept looks pretty, it almost seems to be a step backwards in available functionality.
Instead, I'd have to flick back and forth between the apps like a headless chicken?
[Edit] Actually, take his example apps as a suggestion. He's running VLC to watch star trek, but can't watch it at the same time as say using the browser. In a traditional window set-up, you can just set VLC to stay on top and overlay a portion of the screen while you can continue doing something else (like using the browser).
Although the concept looks pretty, it almost seems to be a step backwards in available functionality.
All of the new desktop environments I know of (Win 8, Gnome 3, Unity) are steps backwards. The classical desktop concept (taskbar + floating windows) has tens of years of evolution behind it. If there was a better concept, it would have been invented before.
I'm sorry, but that's just a terrible way of thinking about things. If we assume things that have been around for a while have reached their apex by virtue of them having been around for a while we'd never make any progress.
Let's forget computers for a while and think about good ol' pen and paper. Ask yourself these questions:
Do you use a desk?
Do you use paper?
Do you use folders?
How big is your desk?
How do you keep the papers on your desk?
Do you hold up one sheet to read and one sheet exclusively?
Do you keep a bunch of sheets side-by-side and compare them to each other?
Do you like to open folders repeatedly or open a few papers from each folder?
But it's usually true. Inventions are usually enabled by changes of the surrounding environment.
They need to make the desktop monitors as small as phone screens for this to be acceptable.
Manual window management is awful. Windows 8 ditched windows in favor of fullscreen apps. Traditional desktop window paradigms are powerful but obsolete.
In any multi-monitor situation living without manual window management is awful. What they need to do is to offer a choice instead of forcing users down a specific path.
In any multi-monitor situation living without manual window management is awful. What they need to do is to offer a choice instead of forcing users down a specific path.
Fullscreen apps are especially fun on 27" 4k displays!
Manual window management isn't the perfect UI paradigm for anyone, regardless of input method. Being able to overlap by a few pixels isn't necessary for me.
A simple way to see where window management should have gone is to look how it has changed within applications, where the resistance to change is lower. 15 years ago it was all MDI applications, where the idea that a doc has a window . Soon people realized that noone really needs to overlap their word documents windows, or move their photoshop tool dialog by 3 pixels, so more modern applications used docking managers to snap and tile their workspace together to use as much of the available area as possible.
As usual in the demos and mockups of both Win8 and this concept, the applications demonstrated happen to be simple communication apps, media players and so on. I'd like to see Photoshop, Visual Studio, AutoCad etc. that actually have a large workspace with several confgurable areas. I don't think it would be horrible to lose the movable windows, but I'd want something as powerful in return: Windows should manage the desktop the way a good desktop application manages its different areas.
A simple way to see where window management should have gone is to look how it has changed within applications, where the resistance to change is lower. 15 years ago it was all MDI applications, where the idea that a doc has a window . Soon people realized that noone really needs to overlap their word documents windows, or move their photoshop tool dialog by 3 pixels, so more modern applications used docking managers to snap and tile their workspace together to use as much of the available area as possible.
As usual in the demos and mockups of both Win8 and this concept, the applications demonstrated happen to be simple communication apps, media players and so on. I'd like to see Photoshop, Visual Studio, AutoCad etc. that actually have a large workspace with several confgurable areas. I don't think it would be horrible to lose the movable windows, but I'd want something as powerful in return: Windows should manage the desktop the way a good desktop application manages its different areas.
Exactly. People need resizable panes, not overlapping windows.
Although this is a much better looking concept than what is currently available in Windows 8 I still do not understand how it solves anything for people who actually need to do development on these machines. I would hate to have to do development in an IDE such as Visual Studio or Eclipse while being restricted to this sort of interface.
Trying to force a tablet interface on a desktop machine is simply not acceptable. It makes matters even worse when you look at a server operating system such as Windows Server 2012. That is simply the biggest FAIL for an interface on a server OS I have ever seen.
Trying to force a tablet interface on a desktop machine is simply not acceptable. It makes matters even worse when you look at a server operating system such as Windows Server 2012. That is simply the biggest FAIL for an interface on a server OS I have ever seen.
Reminds me of http://www.datamation.com/news/tech-comics-windows-8-1.html
I'm starting to get feeling, that Microsoft consciously abandons PC as a workstation with a fully functional OS model and moving towards dumb browser-only tablet-like terminal. And I bet that some cloud based, .NET like IDE for Windows developers is on their plans.
..and I'm sooo happy that I can do all my development work on Linux machine.
I'm starting to get feeling, that Microsoft consciously abandons PC as a workstation with a fully functional OS model and moving towards dumb browser-only tablet-like terminal. And I bet that some cloud based, .NET like IDE for Windows developers is on their plans.
..and I'm sooo happy that I can do all my development work on Linux machine.
That sounds extremely likely if you look at the way they are going. I completely agree that I have never looked back since I started using Linux instead. If I truly need a Windows machine I will spin up a virtual machine.
> In the brand new Visual Studio 2015 keyboard support has been dropped so that we could focus on delivering state-of-the-art handwriting recognition algorithms so that you can easily develop even the most complex applications with nothing more than a single finger or a stylus.
The best thing that could ever happen for Linux is for Microsoft to follow in the footsteps of Windows 8, with their design for Windows 9.
I like it. I think the 2+ decades old idea of resizable and draggable windows is becoming a nuisance. With 5+ windows overlaying each others, the desktop becomes a chaotic mess.
People who say they need to be able to have multiple windows on screen should really be having multiple monitors if they don't already. Because even with high-res monitors, most productivity applications (IDEs,Excel,etc) are unusable anyway when not in full screen.
The drag&drop can be easily solved by dragging content from one app to another by dropping on their desired app icon on the taskbar. Or have dedicated share button to other apps like how Android does it.
People who say they need to be able to have multiple windows on screen should really be having multiple monitors if they don't already. Because even with high-res monitors, most productivity applications (IDEs,Excel,etc) are unusable anyway when not in full screen.
The drag&drop can be easily solved by dragging content from one app to another by dropping on their desired app icon on the taskbar. Or have dedicated share button to other apps like how Android does it.
Resizable and draggable windows lets you arrange items on the screen very similar to the way that you have items on a desk. It works - it isn't broken or out of date. When writing in a notebook on my physical desk, I do not want my notebook to be the size of my desk. I might be taking notes from a book. If my notebook was the size of the desk, how can I read my book? I can't.
Overlaying windows is brilliant. It isn't a problem to press Alt-Tab or use the taskbar. Personally, the grouped buttons on the taskbar is a nuisance as you need to click on it (XP) or hover over it and wait for a popup (7+) rather than just seeing loads of window buttons.
I have multiple hires screens but this doesn't suddenly mean I want one fullscreen window on each screen. That effectively reduces the windowing system to only displaying two items at a time. My physical desk has more - why should the computer suddenly be limited to only a couple of items?
Overlaying windows is brilliant. It isn't a problem to press Alt-Tab or use the taskbar. Personally, the grouped buttons on the taskbar is a nuisance as you need to click on it (XP) or hover over it and wait for a popup (7+) rather than just seeing loads of window buttons.
I have multiple hires screens but this doesn't suddenly mean I want one fullscreen window on each screen. That effectively reduces the windowing system to only displaying two items at a time. My physical desk has more - why should the computer suddenly be limited to only a couple of items?
While I personally tend use applications fully maximized, I do have a need to open two (or more) applications side-by-side from time to time. I do not like a multiple monitor setup because I find it very distracting having a second monitor on my peripheral vision. I do agree that overlaying windows can become a mess. How about an eclipse style (or gimp 2.8 style) interface, which doesn't allow you to have overlapping windows? I don't think I've ever needed to have windows overlap on purpose. If anything, I'm usually wasting time trying to align them to maximize the usable screen space.
Have you tried other window managers besides explorer.exe? There is more to window management than the old Windows™ routine of resizing and dragging windows by pointing device.
I disagree, first of all I already have multiple monitors, and while my IDE is maximized on my main monitor, the secondary monitor has multiple windows with documentation, file manager and logs, or other stuff depending on what I am working on.
About the drag&drop I have a problem with that, supose the application supports more than one place to drop with different functionality, how do you solve that?
About the drag&drop I have a problem with that, supose the application supports more than one place to drop with different functionality, how do you solve that?
I used to do this too actually. Throwing a bunch of windows to my secondary screen. But over time, I realized I don't use them at all over time. Sticky notes are all over it and it was just a mess.
Now I try to have only two things open at once to streamline my work flow. Everything in excess, I try to have it my IDE when possible using plugins.
Now I try to have only two things open at once to streamline my work flow. Everything in excess, I try to have it my IDE when possible using plugins.
What if you have a laptop? I often have some crappy tv show over on the right hand side of my screen with the code editor taking up the other 3 quarters. Or two notepads in semi different places to be able to type text from one to the other with different formatting (eg eg brainstorm notes into DB query).
Not going to give those options up
Not going to give those options up
> people.. should really be having multiple monitors if they don't already.
Multiple monitors are used because hires monitors are expensive. Once that changes we are back to the same problem.
Multiple monitors are used because hires monitors are expensive. Once that changes we are back to the same problem.
It looks fancy and pretty and all that, but I would probably hate using it for the same reason I hate using Windows 8 right now.
Yes. Manual window-management is tedious and in an ideal world should be obsolete, but I don't think this is the solution either.
Basically, I hate this automatic window-management more than I hate manual window-management and then we've not really gone anywhere useful.
For reference, I use tiling WMs in Linux and I'm happy with that, but I can see how that's not a solution for most people. We need to reach a middle-ground somehow.
Yes. Manual window-management is tedious and in an ideal world should be obsolete, but I don't think this is the solution either.
Basically, I hate this automatic window-management more than I hate manual window-management and then we've not really gone anywhere useful.
For reference, I use tiling WMs in Linux and I'm happy with that, but I can see how that's not a solution for most people. We need to reach a middle-ground somehow.
Not too surprising to see lots of people here who would prefer a gradual evolution of Windows toward a touch interface. Bouncing back and forth between legacy Windows and "Modern" UI is obviously unsatisfactory. But, remember that Microsoft tried a gradual, familiar evolutionary approach three times previously and failed. Where were you then?
Now Microsoft has a new kind of failure. Is evolving it in this proposed direction or any other going to succeed? I think this proposal is good. It helps the "bouncing back and forth" problem. One problem is that Microsoft has different security models for "Modern" and legacy apps. (Never mind what kind of sense it makes to have a stronger and weaker app security model in the same OS.)
Here is a potential irony: Ubuntu Touch is an evolutionary approach to bringing a conventional implementation of the desktop metaphor to touch. I could see using an Ubuntu tablet. It probably won't be widely popular since it will have some touch-unfriendly legacy in it. But it might end up being a better evolutionary path than what Microsoft chose. But I'd know what I'm getting and probably be comfortable with it.
Now Microsoft has a new kind of failure. Is evolving it in this proposed direction or any other going to succeed? I think this proposal is good. It helps the "bouncing back and forth" problem. One problem is that Microsoft has different security models for "Modern" and legacy apps. (Never mind what kind of sense it makes to have a stronger and weaker app security model in the same OS.)
Here is a potential irony: Ubuntu Touch is an evolutionary approach to bringing a conventional implementation of the desktop metaphor to touch. I could see using an Ubuntu tablet. It probably won't be widely popular since it will have some touch-unfriendly legacy in it. But it might end up being a better evolutionary path than what Microsoft chose. But I'd know what I'm getting and probably be comfortable with it.
I did my own design idea on the next version of windows, but didn't go so far as calling it "Windows 9"
http://pedalpete.github.io/windows_idea/
This design is much 'nicer' than mine, and probably more progressive. I would have liked to have seen what was returned in the search, and the layout of a search.
This design is much 'nicer' than mine, and probably more progressive. I would have liked to have seen what was returned in the search, and the layout of a search.
As far as touchscreen-compatible window management goes, I'm not sure it gets better than ChromeOS.
For example, the keyboard shortcuts for snapping a window left or right let you customize how wide the window is after the snap. So for example, alt + ] snaps the window to the right half of the screen. The same shortcut again grows the window to 90% wide, then 80%, then 60%, and finally back to 50%. So if I want whatever I'm reading to be decently wide at the cost of letting my SSH window take up slightly less than half the screen, I can make that happen without a mouse. Or for a good responsive site, 20% or 30% of my screen is all the site needs.
In addition, when I have two windows each taking up 50%, hovering on the window edges they share them brings up an additional handle that lets me adjust the width of both windows simultaneously (if I want). Why can't Windows do that?
Finally, there's a keyboard shortcut for centering a window on the screen, which I am a total sucker for.
For example, the keyboard shortcuts for snapping a window left or right let you customize how wide the window is after the snap. So for example, alt + ] snaps the window to the right half of the screen. The same shortcut again grows the window to 90% wide, then 80%, then 60%, and finally back to 50%. So if I want whatever I'm reading to be decently wide at the cost of letting my SSH window take up slightly less than half the screen, I can make that happen without a mouse. Or for a good responsive site, 20% or 30% of my screen is all the site needs.
In addition, when I have two windows each taking up 50%, hovering on the window edges they share them brings up an additional handle that lets me adjust the width of both windows simultaneously (if I want). Why can't Windows do that?
Finally, there's a keyboard shortcut for centering a window on the screen, which I am a total sucker for.
I don't agree with Microsoft.. but i also don't agree with statements like "Just NO NO AND NO...I want to be able to place my windows where I want...I know better than the OS how and where I want my windows" and "Wrong. Manual windows management is just what a professional needs."
At least, it is not true for me. Manually placing and resizing windows, lowering and raising them, that is sooo much mouse work which reduces my productivity, i'm happy that in 99% of my workflow i do not need to do that kind of stuff anymore, but when i want the freedom i can just fall back to that ..
I think Microsoft got the point with their tablet-orientation fullscreen-only-apps, driven by touchscreen interfaces, but agreed, forcing everyone into that (currently coupled with the dual-old-desktop-mess) is ridiculous, user-hostile and typically Microsoft. This inofficial Windows 9 concept does not really help either.. IMHO they are looking for what tiling window managers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager) have implemented since a long time (without being driven by the touchy-concepts), without taking away any freedom like Microsoft always does it, because MS thinks they know what's best for their users? :
• Provide automatic placement for windows, fullscreen, halfscreen, spiraled, any layout which makes sense for you. • Have the nice side-effect that they are much more controllable by keyboard only, increasing productivity even more (at least for developer's kind of work) • Provide the freedom, that if you want to, you can just take windows and resize them freely like default window managers
Introducing and playing with new concepts still is the right, however i think MS should stop forcing users into every new concept, but leave the freedom for the advanced user to customize to their style... if i have ever to go back to windows i hope there is a tiling window manager with the features i am accustomed to ;)
I think Microsoft got the point with their tablet-orientation fullscreen-only-apps, driven by touchscreen interfaces, but agreed, forcing everyone into that (currently coupled with the dual-old-desktop-mess) is ridiculous, user-hostile and typically Microsoft. This inofficial Windows 9 concept does not really help either.. IMHO they are looking for what tiling window managers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager) have implemented since a long time (without being driven by the touchy-concepts), without taking away any freedom like Microsoft always does it, because MS thinks they know what's best for their users? :
• Provide automatic placement for windows, fullscreen, halfscreen, spiraled, any layout which makes sense for you. • Have the nice side-effect that they are much more controllable by keyboard only, increasing productivity even more (at least for developer's kind of work) • Provide the freedom, that if you want to, you can just take windows and resize them freely like default window managers
Introducing and playing with new concepts still is the right, however i think MS should stop forcing users into every new concept, but leave the freedom for the advanced user to customize to their style... if i have ever to go back to windows i hope there is a tiling window manager with the features i am accustomed to ;)
My one complaint about Windows 8 is that I can't use Win+# to switch to the fullscreen apps. I wouldn't even mind the fact that they took up the entire screen if I was able to navigate to and from them with ease. The way to navigate between the full screen apps is with Win+tab which forces me to use two paradigms for task switching. I'm sure this irks alt-tabbers as well.
I was wondering what the difference is between the hatred for the win 8 change compared to the change from win 3.x to 95 (nt 4)?
Was it just because not so many people used win 3.x and so ms could change it without so much moaning?
If metro was developed instead of the windows 95 start menu, would it have been hated as much??
Was it just because not so many people used win 3.x and so ms could change it without so much moaning?
If metro was developed instead of the windows 95 start menu, would it have been hated as much??
It's optimistic to think VLC will be available for Windows 9. It's still not out for Windows 8.
My Windows 8 laptop next to me is playing a video using VLC.
What you meant to say was that VLC does not exist for the MetroUI (I forget what that POS is called these days).
What you meant to say was that VLC does not exist for the MetroUI (I forget what that POS is called these days).
Here you go - VLC doesn't have a Windows Store App.
Windows had to give us choice to use old windows 7 style, or windows 8 style for touch. Right now for enterprise I see, that for companies it is no difference to teach how to use Ubuntu or new windows 8. Windows 8 put OS from leader position on PC to mobile OS for touch devices.
Here is what I want from an OS UI:
http://williamtpayne.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/gui-ng-desiderat...
Perhaps not to everyone's taste, but hey-ho.
http://williamtpayne.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/gui-ng-desiderat...
Perhaps not to everyone's taste, but hey-ho.
<useless>
"Personalization
Users are given control over the desktop background that gives personality to the user experience."
--
What the fuck???!
If they advertise like that then why don't they just sell Windows 95 again?
</useless>
"Personalization
Users are given control over the desktop background that gives personality to the user experience."
--
What the fuck???!
If they advertise like that then why don't they just sell Windows 95 again?
</useless>
This is almost done with Rainmeter and http://omnimo.info/. Pretty useful on my B121 tablet.
Not a fan of this design. Its hard to distinguish what UIs go with what and everything generally seems all thrown together in one UI with no demarcation.
This is somewhat like the 10/GUI concept from 2009: http://10gui.com/
I want more desktops not less. Not having native support for multiple desktops is a shame in 2013.
I fail to understand how this is any different from a skinned Android tablet interface.
This would be interesting to see as a linux distro, and more realistic to boot (zing).
Please make this for Ubuntu.
I think Linux would be the perfect place to test these assumptions, or concepts. There have been some distros that implement new looks (ElementaryOS). It would be an interesting idea to implement these concepts on-top of Linux.
There's also a more intuitive eavesdropping functionality for NSA agents in the new Windows OS.
Just NO NO AND NO, I can't be the only one who hates the new Windows interface, I want to be able to place my windows where I want them not be forced to use full screen for everything, or rely on some automated way to place them, I know better than the OS how and where I want my windows.
Sorry but I had to get that out of my chest, I can't deal with the new Windows interface, it annoys me.
Microsoft please stop trying to force a tablet/touch interface into a desktop computer it just doesn't make any sense.