I'm not sure who some of these points were aimed at as they don't seem relevant to any of my posts, but as my text is quoted, I will respond.
Your attitude to the Modern UI would be better if you appreciated exactly what it offered. As a user of a Surface RT, I'm in a better position to judge.
I've used Windows 8 and Windows Phone so I have some experience of metro and I appreciate what it offers. I haven't used Windows RT so I can't and didn't comment directly on that - hence my question.
Firstly, as a touch or gesture interface, the traditional desktop is a non-starter. It isn't just that the buttons are too small, one advantage of a mouse is that it can give extremely fine control, finer than your fingers. The trouble with a mouse though is that it ties you to a real desktop as well as a computer one. It is near impossible with a traditional computer to sit on your settee and browse the internet - yes you can use the track pad on your laptop, but that's painfully slow and clumsy. The Modern UI makes it easy for tablet users to free themselves from the tyranny of desks (and who wants a desk in their home anyway?) and consume media. Whats more, I can even use the handwriting recognition built in to do work on the settee, in bed or even out in the real world with no fuss - taking notes with One note or writing something more substantial with Word.
Fully agree with your first point. Traditional desktops offer a poor experience on a touchscreen. I have never personally had a problem with trackpads, but indeed a tablet is much nicer for web browsing, etc on a sofa. But for typing a significant amount of text or doing many other kinds of work, a desk is much more convenient.
I believe people who insist on Windows Pro on their tablet are making mistake, because although Win Pro can run their legacy software, they have to go back to a desk to do it, which negates the point of a nice light tablet.
Another thing the Modern UI gives is instant real time information. On my start screen I have local weather, my calendar, local train times(and whether they're running late) and news being presented to me. Once you have access to this type of information, it's very hard to do without it and it is all synchronised between my PCs so it doesn't matter which one I'm using.
Widgets/live tiles can be useful, but personally I can't say I miss them on my iPad. For me, they are a 'nice to have' rather than essential. But that's just my opinion. I would certainly welcome Apple adding something similar to iOS. On a desktop/laptop, I find tiles much less useful as I don't want to see metro.
Modern UI apps are better than traditional ones in that. like in iOS, they are vetted before becoming available in the store. This means that one day, we will not have to waste money, memory and processor power running anti-virus software.
You are right, the desktop in RT is limited to running just a few programs. This is because the vast majority of legacy software will not run on ARM processors and I knew this before I bought the Surface, so I'm not going to complain or accept it as a criticism, because every Modern UI app will run irrespective of whether the processor is ARM or Intel. I look forward to the release of touch optimised versions of Office and the demise of the desktop in RT.
I don't think I made any statements about Windows RT so I assume that is aimed at someone else. Regarding the 'app store' approach, personally I prefer Android, which my default limits you to installing software from the official app store, but allows you to install apps from other sources (at your own risk) if you like. Of course, there's nothing to stop Microsoft creating an 'app store' for desktop software. Apple have this already, and Linux distributions have had something similar since the 1990s.
Right now, Windows is in transition and its easy to understand why many people are unhappy, especially f they are naturally resistant to change, but iOS/Android/Chrome offer no conceptual advantages and can't match what Windows already offers. People talk as if iOS/Android are somehow optimal, but is the best you can come up with, really?
Again, I assume that's not aimed at me, but I will respond anyway. As far as I can tell, iOS, Android, WP and RT all offer a fairly similar set of features and capabilities. Broadly speaking, they are as optimal (or not) as each other. Chrome OS is a bit different and better dealt with another time. My comments above were aimed at Windows for desktops/laptops, where, even after reading this thread, I still find metro intrusive and not useful - but again, that's just my opinion.
In the future touch or gesture will be the rule rather than the exception, voice and handwriting recognition will be so good that no one will type anything and the mouse will be a specialist tool like a graphics tablet. Then the desktop will be seen as the quaint and inefficient shell it is.
That I do not agree with. Typing is actually very efficient if you need to enter a significant amount of text. But I do agree that future devices will likely support many different input methods. That's good, because it means we can all choose to work the way that we prefer.
I actually think the desktop is rather efficient for a 'full PC', especially for professional use. You might argue that for basic home use, it's unnecessarily complex, but people are familiar with it and metro (and iOS/Android) is limited in comparison.
Microsoft could have copied Apple's static icons the way Google did, but instead they innovated to a dynamic UI which provides useful information. They should be applauded for their bravery instead of this constant mealy-mouthed, narrow minded Luddite hypocrisy that we have to endure on forums like this and from the press.
1. Have you heard of Android widgets?
2. I think you should be a bit more tolerant of other people's opinions.
3. I would like to see Microsoft (or Linux or Apple) find ways to make the desktop more dynamic. I just don't think that the full screen metro UI is a good way to do this on a laptop or desktop.
Microsoft has the clearer vision and it will pay off in the end.
We will see. My concern with Microsoft's vision is that it assumes 'one size fits all'. I think that their current products suggest this isn't the case, and that more variation between UIs is needed to support smart phones, tablets and laptops. And, as I often say on these forums, perhaps the biggest problem is that Microsoft have nothing to address other types of device - smart watches, TVs, ... - and makers of those devices are increasingly turning to Android. Microsoft are in serious danger of missing the boat again on whatever new types of product emerge in the coming years. Flexibility, and giving more control and opportunity to others should be the first aim for the new CEO.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram