| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Windows 8's desktop mode: Microsoft's 'Classic' |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-03-06 23:27:08 |
| As you may have seen, David's been taking care of OSNews for a few days because I'm quite busy with work. Still, there's one thing I'd like to talk about: the desktop mode in Windows 8. I wish I could've added this to the first impressions article, but I only arrived at this conclusion yesterday: desktop mode in Windows 8 is Microsoft's equivalent of Mac OS X's Classic mode. |
|
| RE[2]: Metro |
| By Gone fishing on 2012-03-07 09:25:56 |
|
Things change, During the Vista débâcle we saw the rise of Apple, Windows 7 allowed MS to recover somewhat, during this time Linux has grown slowly on the Desktop. However, it has made in roads in other areas and Desktop Linux has slowly improved. If some of Canonicals plans come together we will see Ubuntu take off in various new areas, and this may well renew interest in the Desktop. One problem with Desktop Linux has been the willingness of a big player to take the plunge this may change. Edit I do hate mouse taps on laptop tracker pads - forgot to turn it off on this new install of 12.04 Edited 2012-03-07 09:42 UTC |
 - Score: 3 |
| Tablets and PCs are different things !!! |
| By DrJohnnyFever on 2012-03-07 10:05:07 |
|
Both Microsoft and Apple and to some extend the various open source desktop environments need to get it through their think skulls that Tablets, phones and Desktops/Laptops are DIFFERENT THINGS and DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS lend themselves to the different platforms. Metro should be a failure on the desktop. Its totally daft. Its great on a tablet, yes, so make it for tablets. Computer users are not so stupid that we can't use a different GUI on clearly different devices. STOP THE NONSENSE! |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Actually Windows 7 had the xpmode :) |
| By Drumhellar on 2012-03-07 10:32:51 |
|
I think a closer comparison would be NTVDM, which allowed 16-bit DOS and Windows apps to run on 32-bit NT versions. This allowed software using old APIs that didn't have memory protection or preemptive multitasking to run in an environment that did, via a virtual machine. Really, the only thing that prevented some XP software from running in Vista was poor programming practices. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Cool story |
| By gan17 on 2012-03-07 11:12:39 |
|
Best of luck to MS and Metro Doesn't hold a candle to a Xmonad, though. =P |
| - Score: 2 |
| Well no, it is not |
| By puenktchen on 2012-03-07 11:20:31 |
|
The desktop mode of Windows 8 isn't comparable to OSX's classic mode in any way. Rather, the approach of Microsoft is the complete opposite of Apples approach. OSX and Classic where two different operating system, metro and "the desktop" are just two different guis based on the same operating system. There were technical reasons why not all programs written for the classic Mac OS could run on OSX. There are no technical reasons why traditional windows apps can't run on Win8, thats what they do after all. The separation between metro and desktop programs is arbitrary. Apple tried to soften the technological divide between old and new OS by providing the carbon library, making it easy to write programs which would run on both operating systems. Classic apps didn't run in a separate desktop, but on the OSX-desktop. And the gui of OSX tried hard to look like Mac OS, all candy optic aside. Just compare it to the gui of Nextstep, thats where it really came from. So Apple tried to make the switch as easy and seamless as possible, while Microsoft tries to kick all old style programs out. Maybe they can allow to do that, Apple was down to barely more than 1% market share and had to be nice to their clients and developers. |
| - Score: 4 |
| The difference is... |
| By malxau on 2012-03-07 12:14:02 |
|
...Carbon. In OS X there was a path forward for existing source code to be migrated to the new environment. In Metro, the input devices are different, the APIs are different, the environment is different. Existing source code would be much harder to migrate. Whereas OS X lent itself to a "migration", Win8 lends itself towards parallel universes - some code will only be Metro, some code will never be Metro, and the user will be left having to interact with two environments. For that reason, if the desktop is viewed as a "penalty box", that will be a very bad outcome for Win8. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: fantastic? |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-03-07 13:21:51 |
|
It is pretty solid OS, whatever you say ... I certainly think it the best OS I have used. Also this "Microsoft $hilling" nonsense gets old. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Bleh |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-03-07 13:23:44 |
| What are you on about, Classic Apps can still be tiled like before. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Bleh |
| By r_a_trip on 2012-03-07 13:25:05 |
|
It is great on laptops. It will be great for 24" and smaller screens. Mouse and Keyboard input is just as functional as touch. It isn't going anywhere. Yeah we know you are the flagbearer for Metro because of your comments in the various Windows 8 threads. Good for you if you like it. It's just a pity for all the people who dislike Metro that MS thinks they can make this horrid thing the new paradigm for the next 2 decades. There are enough things to say about metro that aren't positive. For one, the colors are garish. I don't know which "designer" brought in the fingerpaints of his three year olds for inspiration, but if they don't change the color palet of it, then Windows XP might be forced to relinquish the title of "Fisher-Price interface". Further on the look of it, it is sooooooo horribly flat. It's nice that MS is dogfooding MS Paint for their designs, but come on. Flat, oversized blocks on an endless strip of "paper", scrollable from left to right is not innovative design. When it comes to working the thing. Task switching is painful (with a lot of mousing) or mostly non-discoverable (keyboard shortcuts, which mere mortals never use). All menu entries float in an endless sea and it is not at all efficient to find stuff in there and with every new application installed, it only gets worse. Never mind the slapped in "legacy desktop, which sticks out as a sore thumb in the whole paradigm. Metro is different, but for me it is absolutely not compelling. I'm not a Windows user, but until the advent of Metro, I always kept the option of switching to Windows open. It wasn't likely, but it was an open option. with Metro that option is definitely off the list. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: A bit torn on this one |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-03-07 13:27:27 |
| Real Work ... please define |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |