05-21-2014 10:43 PM
190 12345 ...
tools
  1. iamtim's Avatar
    I hate when i open skype and can't put it as i want on my screen
    ...you know that you can download and use the regular Skype desktop app, yes?
    05-16-2014 11:32 AM
  2. a5cent's Avatar
    Metro apps are totally useless on a desktop computer, there's still none I use. So the Metro "start menu" is absolutely useless too.
    I agree with many of your posts, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

    Can you explain how not wanting to use metro apps on your desktop makes the start screen (no, it's not the metro "start menu") useless? I see absolutely no relationship between the two. None. Zero. Zilch. The start screen makes perfect sense even without using a single metro app. I think my earlier posts explained why. No?

    You might as well say that video games are totally useless to you on your desktop computer, so the taskbar is absolutely useless too.... makes sense... not.
    Chregu, BobLobIaw and link68759 like this.
    05-16-2014 01:06 PM
  3. Chregu's Avatar
    I agree with many of your posts, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

    Can you explain how not wanting to use metro apps on your desktop makes the start screen (no, it's not the metro "start menu") useless? I see absolutely no relationship between the two. None. Zero. Zilch. The start screen makes perfect sense even without using a single metro app. I think my earlier posts explained why. No?

    You might as well say that music software is totally useless to you on your desktop computer, so the taskbar is absolutely useless too.... makes sense... not.
    You're right, I might have taken a big shortcut here. It worked out in my head ;-)

    What I meant is that the big to huge icons (on a big screen, not on a tablet I mean) are pretty much useless if they don't show information. But as I don't use Metro apps there are no apps that provide information for the start screen. And even if they did (actually, I use some Metro apps just for this), it's still more practical to open a tab in the browser that's running on the desktop anyway and get the information faster and more detailed.

    There's also no use of the email app - just as another example - as I have Outlook running anyway on every desktop computer and laptop I use, again no need to put a Metro surface over everything I have on the desktop just for the start menu.

    The Windows 7 start menu offers everything I need, and even though I don't mind the Metro menu anymore since 8.1, I still think it's just an unnecessary distraction. I use the Win 7 menu sometimes, I just have stopped using the Win 8 menu.

    Makes more sense? Makes sense to me ;-)
    a5cent likes this.
    05-16-2014 01:12 PM
  4. Sport Driver's Avatar
    Someone asked if anyone tried using metro interface on 27" screen, well I'm using it every day. Rarely use normal desktop. I find apps very useful. I often use Tapatalk and I also use FB and Twitter. I also love Windows 8.1 because it's looks so modern, whole room looks much more modern with metro interface on my screen.




    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 820 using Tapatalk
    05-16-2014 02:41 PM
  5. a5cent's Avatar
    Makes more sense? Makes sense to me ;-)
    Yeah. Makes much more sense now. ;-) I normally wouldn't protest what you wrote there, but since you took it overboard the first time, you will now have to put up with my nit-picking ;-) Sorry ;-)

    What I meant is that the big to huge icons (on a big screen, not on a tablet I mean) are pretty much useless if they don't show information. But as I don't use Metro apps there are no apps that provide information for the start screen.
    Yes, the "big to huge icons" are useless if they show no information. And? So what? Why is that a problem?

    If you don't like the large tiles, you can select them all and, with a single click, shrink them down to the same size that pinned icons have always been (or any icon placed on the desktop for that matter). No difference... oh... except that using the start screen you can now organize and group your pinned icons in ways that are far more powerful than what was possible using the W7 desktop and start menu.

    More importantly, who is to say that large icons will always remain useless for desktop software? For example, just like you, I too use desktop Outlook (I uninstalled the metro mail client), and I believe desktop Outlook would be much improved if it too supported live tile functionality. I suspect (hope) it's just a matter of time until that happens. Would that make the start screen better/more useful to you? I think it would. However, at the same time, the fact that such functionality isn't yet supported doesn't make the start screen conceptually worse today.

    as I have Outlook running anyway on every desktop computer and laptop I use, again no need to put a Metro surface over everything I have on the desktop just for the start menu.
    I suspect you meant start screen, otherwise I don't understand the sentence.

    Anyway, Microsoft isn't putting a metro surface over everything just for the sake of including a live tile on the start screen. They are putting a metro surface over everything to make touch friendy software for the folks using tablets. For you, as a desktop user, that should make absolutely no difference. I guarantee you there are at least a thousand Windows features that you've never used. That hasn't made Windows any worse for you so far. The existence of a metro styled mail client shouldn't either. Just uninstall it or don't use it.

    In summary, I can understand people not liking metro apps on the desktop. However, I think many people aren't able to mentally separate the start screen from the metro runtime environment. Metro apps and the start screen may all be blocky and may be rendered using similar colours, but that is a very superficial way of judging two separate concepts that are barely related (from a technical point of view). I think this is where you stumbled, but in contrast to you, many won't ever recognize the difference. I think the start screen is takeing a lot of unjustified flack for that reason.
    BobLobIaw and Chregu like this.
    05-16-2014 02:49 PM
  6. link68759's Avatar
    Also, Windows 8 was just Windows 7 with the Metro surface put on it, and it showed that Microsoft just didn't have time to do it in a good way. Everything was really disconnected.
    .
    Gonna stop you there.

    Actually, the changes to the kernel and under the hood improvements are very, very significant. 8 is not just a new skin, which is why it's stupid that people still cling to 7. If you absolutely cannot adapt to the start screen, go buy the stardock win8 start menu.

    A lot of people stubbornly stick to 7 and they're really not doing anything but coming off as morons (not you specifically, I know some people who are just really....hhhh)- all they're doing is abstaining from objective system updates / improvements because they couldn't be bothered to spend two minutes installing one of the many start menu clones for 8? Or even, just use one of the thousands of 3rd party program launchers? Launchers which exist btw precisely because the XP and 7 start menus just aren't very good... My point being, 8 is a huge major new OS, and windows had always had a large degree of customization through 3rd party tools. These 3rd party customizations have not gone anywhere with 8, and barring the rare incompatibility, there's just no valid reason to actively choose 7 over 8.
    a5cent, mpt15 and BobLobIaw like this.
    05-16-2014 03:18 PM
  7. link68759's Avatar
    I also want to go on record as saying I love the idea of apps on the desktop (yes with mouse and keyboard). I love the idea of lives tiles on desktop.

    That said, at the time of writing there just aren't enough useful ones. The ModernUI idea is solid, but it's hard to defend it when I have nothing to point to.

    I have maybe 4 apps I use and 5 live tiles. :/

    Here's why apps have the potential to be good.

    A) Desktop programs can and will create files and registry entries at will, and rarely clean them up upon uninstall. Over time this causes conflicts and wastes space.

    The ModernUI environment fixes this.

    B) System integrity and security. An elevated desktop program can do anything, and a lot of programs request elevation to run for no good reason. So the security model comes down to trusting the program to not abuse power. You need to elevate to install anything too...

    ModernUI fixes this.

    C) User privacy. Apps have isolated stores and are sandboxed. This means, the facebook app cannot use tracking cookies or LSOs or scripts to track your purchases in the amazon app. If more sites released good apps, users would use the browser less and average Joe would unwittingly be better for it. Also, you can do more with an app than a web site, and have better performance than in a browser to boot.

    ModernUI could do this with more developer adoption.

    D) performance and battery life. Desktop programs are just free to use whatever resources, whenever. A poorly programmed facebook notifier that sits in the system tray could be abusing your battery and CPU and RAM.

    ModernUI solves this with restricted background agents and the standardization of push notifications.

    E) Active notifications are distressing and distracting. You're trying to get work done, and facebook beeps at you. Or your email clients dings.

    Live tiles are silent, and passive. You check them, they don't come to you.

    Many people wonder why Microsoft would do something as stupid as make "apps only for touch screens" on desktop. It's because they're beginning to fix major flaws in their operating system numb nuts, and for all the flack about "old people find it confusing", it's really, really a better system for those who are not so tech savvy.
    05-16-2014 03:42 PM
  8. iamtim's Avatar
    Metro apps are totally useless on a desktop computer
    I could not disagree more. I use Mail and Calendar instead of Microsoft Outlook, Reader instead of Adobe Acrobat Reader, OneNote instead of... eh... OneNote, and a whole slew of other Metro apps. I get TONS of use out of them.
    05-16-2014 04:04 PM
  9. anon(5445874)'s Avatar
    It's pretty simple, if you actually use windows 8, you'll never go back to 7. Even if you just ignore the start screen, there are many new features that make life much easier. I'm not even going to bring them up because everyone that's here and reading this stuff either knows what these things are or they are just here to hate anything MS does. Sure there are a few people who hate change and a few who just cannot learn new things, but in reality not many people actually hate windows 8. It's a few people yelling on the street corner that windows 8 sucks. And because of those few people making all that noise, a lot of people just assume its true. I've had people tell me that W8 isn't good. I ask them why, they have no real answers. So I show them how windows 8 actually works, and they actually like it. And stop it with this mouse and keyboard crap. Even before the new 8.1 stuff, windows 8 was just fine with a keyboard and mouse, sure it's better now and it will only get better as we go. I wouldn't go back to 7 if someone paid me. Also, just having the app store adds so much more to windows 8. I remember the old days on 7... when you had to download a youtube video, having to install stuff with spyware, or using sites that worked for a while and then didn't work, risking the safety of your computer daily. The Windows Store and it's apps are one of the greatest things to ever be added to windows.
    afnan_mc likes this.
    05-16-2014 04:09 PM
  10. a5cent's Avatar
    I also want to go on record as saying I love the idea of apps on the desktop (yes with mouse and keyboard).
    A, B, C, D E snipped
    All of those properties result from being tied to the metro runtime environment, which in turn is tied to the metro UI. I agree that all those properties are desirable. I agree that those properties should also be available/enforced for desktop software. However, I don't think the metro UI should be a necessary part of that. Basically, I disagree that you wanting those properties in affect for your software should make you prefer a certain type of UI design language! None of those properties have anything to do with UI design. More importantly, both UI design languages have their place. Neither can replace the other, but they are good at addressing the specific user interface challenges they were designed to overcome. It wouldn't make sense to invalidate a relatively successful UI design language, due to a host of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the software interface design.

    If it is those properties you want (I do too), then IMHO you shouldn't be advocating for metro apps on the desktop. Instead you should be advocating that a new and scrubbed version of the Win32 API be released that imposes that level of tidiness, simplicity and security on all Windows software. IMHO this is long overdue. IMHO it is time for MS to break with the past. We don't just need a new metro runtime environment. We also need a new Windows desktop environment.
    05-16-2014 04:10 PM
  11. link68759's Avatar
    All of those properties result from being tied to the metro runtime environment, which in turn is tied to the metro UI. I agree that all those properties are desirable. I agree that those properties should also be available/enforced for desktop software. However, I don't think the metro UI should be a necessary part of that. Basically, I disagree that you wanting those properties in affect for your software should make you prefer a certain type of UI design language! None of those properties have anything to do with UI design. More importantly, both UI design languages have their place. Neither can replace the other, but they are good at addressing the specific user interface challenges they were designed to overcome. It wouldn't make sense to invalidate a relatively successful UI design language, due to a host of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the software interface design.

    If it is those properties you want (I do too), then IMHO you shouldn't be advocating for metro apps on the desktop. Instead you should be advocating that a new and scrubbed version of the Win32 API be released that imposes that level of tidiness, simplicity and security on all Windows software. IMHO this is long overdue. IMHO it is time for MS to break with the past. We don't just need a new metro runtime environment. We also need a new Windows desktop environment.

    I didn't mean to imply that I think the ModernUI runtime must go hand in hand with these benefits- I only meant to say that the idea has a bright future. I don't disagree that the current implementation leaves some desired improvement, I just disagree with people who don't understand the benefit, think the whole thing is stupid and should be scrapped.

    However, I don't think we need to worry. You want a revised win32API? I don't think that's going to happen. ModernUI will continue to evolve to fill some feature gaps, and Win32 will continue to be developed in parallel, but MS will never do anything to jeopardize compatibility with older software. The win32 desktop will, for the foreseeable future, continue to operate in much the same way. But running windowed ModernUI apps is coming, and with that will come [better] dynamic resizing of UI elements, and the API will be expanded to have more features and freedom and so on. "We also need a new Windows desktop environment"
    ModernUI will be this new environment in time.
    05-16-2014 04:29 PM
  12. a5cent's Avatar
    "We also need a new Windows desktop environment" ModernUI will be this new environment in time.
    I'm sceptical. I just don't see a single UI paradigm being equally capable in both touch and traditional desktop environments at the same time. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't seem obvious to me how that would be achieved. I really think these are two separate UI paradigms that just don't mix. If metro applications were to cloak themselves in a different UI when running on the desktop, then okay. IE already does this to a degree. Maybe that is where this is headed.

    You want a revised win32API? I don't think that's going to happen. ModernUI will continue to evolve to fill some feature gaps, and Win32 will continue to be developed in parallel, but MS will never do anything to jeopardize compatibility with older software.
    No. I wasn't suggesting breaking compatibility. MS could however do the same thing they did with Metro. Just add a new version of the Win32 API that runs alongside the old. Both APIs would use the same implementation, but software using the newer Win32 API would require installation through the app store, support live tiles, have no knowledge of the registry, be unable to read/write anywhere except to local storage except through user controlled file load/save dialogs, etc, etc, etc

    I'm suggesting this because I think it would be a more practical way of getting existing software onto a more modern track. I think that is more likely to succeed than trying to get Adobe to write a metro aware version of Photoshop. I think the properties you mentioned are extremely important. I just don't see the Windows ecosystem ever getting to that state if the metro track is the only route that leads there.
    05-16-2014 05:05 PM
  13. link68759's Avatar
    I'm sceptical. I just don't see a single UI paradigm being equally capable in both touch and traditional desktop environments at the same time. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't seem obvious to me how that would be achieved. I really think these are two separate UI paradigms that just don't mix. If metro applications were to cloak themselves in a different UI when running on the desktop, then okay. IE already does this to a degree. Maybe that is where this is headed.



    No. I wasn't suggesting breaking compatibility. MS could however do the same thing they did with Metro. Just add a new version of the Win32 API that runs alongside the old. Both APIs would use the same implementation, but software using the newer Win32 API would require installation through the app store, support live tiles, have no knowledge of the registry, be unable to read/write anywhere except to local storage except through user controlled file load/save dialogs, etc, etc, etc

    I'm suggesting this because I think it would be a more practical way of getting existing software onto a more modern track. I think that is more likely to succeed than trying to get Adobe to write a metro aware version of Photoshop. I think the properties you mentioned are extremely important. I just don't see the Windows ecosystem ever getting to that state if the metro track is the only route that leads there.
    But what you described *is* ModernUI with a different skin. Why would they start a third separate API/runtime? That's just a bad move.

    I'm not necessarily saying what I think they should do. I'm saying this is what they are going to do. This is where the ModernUI path leads; perhaps a decade away, but it will go there. As for things like photoshop, when ModernUI matures a bit and gains more adoption, I don't think anyone would have to "get adobe to write" it. They'll want to. And with the high level of code portability, it won't be that hard.

    Now to do some speculation. Look at iPhone and iPad. You make one app, and you can have that app present a different UI depending on which device it is being run on. What's to say ModernUI won't eventually have something like that? It could even change on the same device, when switching from fullscreen to windowed mode. Or, the same layout could be kept, but with improvements such as intelligent restraints and resizing of UI elements, the ModernUI style we have today could remain ostensibly unchanged but for the ability of apps to be resized to smaller rectangles and the content shrinks with it.
    05-16-2014 06:21 PM
  14. Steve Itman's Avatar
    I think that is a very poor analogy. Just the fact that software is far more malleable and multi-functional than kitchen appliances invalidates it. A fridge will never be anything but a volume of cooled air used primarily to preserve food. That severely limits the extent of possible innovation. Compare that to computing devices, which are used for a thousand different things (from entertainment to bookkeeping to scientific simulations), by billions of people with thousands of different professions, each of which have different and unique requirements. The possibilities for innovation are endless. The OS should support as many of those scenarios as possible. The computing device is literally the most configurable device ever invented by man. With that flexibility comes some complexity however, part of which is more frequent change and adaptations. That is simply unavoidable

    If the kitchen appliance analogy held any weight, we'd be using our smartphones by typing in DOS boxes or running shell scripts, because for someone who never experienced anything beyond a command prompt, todays graphical user interfaces would also be a completely unrecognizable. The only way the kitchen appliance analogy makes sense, is if you truly believe that graphical user interfaces have been perfected, and that from this point onwards, any innovation can only make things worse. I doubt we are anywhere close to having perfected the graphical user interface.
    I think it is a great analogy. I would argue the OS is just a dumb appliance. It's a place where apps are installed and used and provides the base level of the 4 C's (control, context, continuity, conveyance) that should permeate through the apps. I would argue Microsoft Windows biggest threat is one of the Linux GUI (I tried Ubuntu's recently and was impressed) or OSX. The only thing keeping it back is Microsoft Office since it will not run on the other OS's (except OSX). If it weren't for that, businesses would have no need to install Windows.

    Microsoft's proper play would be to just make their OS the "premium" one that costs a little more. They should have focused on real productivity gains, making things work that don't like how Windows never remembers your folder view preferences.

    I think it's great you don't like the Start Menu and have your own way. I love the start menu and find it one of the most convenient features ever, everything I need is under that structure. The majority of Windows users agree with me hence all the swirl about taking it out and dozen or so apps now to put it back. It's an ivory tower play, which never goes well.
    05-16-2014 06:41 PM
  15. Steve Itman's Avatar
    Which Cisco VPN client? I use Cisco AnyConnect on my Windows 8.1 system at home all the time, it works flawlessly.
    The Cisco VPN not anyconnect. Basically I have to use freeware Shrewsoft for my commercial clients who use Windows 8 to connect to their Rackspace environments.
    05-16-2014 06:44 PM
  16. Steve Itman's Avatar
    What are you even talking about?

    The mouse doesn't suddenly behave differently anywhere. You point and click. What's unintuitive here?
    It does not right-click anymore. That is what is unintuitive. The mouse works correctly in desktop mode but the useless metro/fullscreen mode it does not do anything anymore (open useless fullscreen PDF viewer and right click, tell me what happens). One of the most useful, most ergonomic features created on the mouse and Microsoft disabled it because there is no right-click on a Windows phone. Brilliant!
    05-16-2014 06:47 PM
  17. Steve Itman's Avatar
    Installed Classic Shell, and never had one single crash or issue.
    It's perhaps the best Win version MSFT ever did in terms of stability.
    Exactly. If you turn off the useless Metro interface, useless charms bar, useless fullscreen apps, and then install a third party software designed to make Win 8 look like Win 7, then it works great! I hesitate to call it stable. I almost never get a blue screen on Win 7. Win 8 has been frequent, in addition to the "limited network connectivity" bug. I get that a couple times a week with no cure other than reboot. Tried updating all the drivers, turned off auto power controls etc... No dice. Not more stable.
    05-16-2014 06:51 PM
  18. Steve Itman's Avatar
    So welcome be the classic menus. You can keep going with the modern UI. Peace
    Classic menus = make it look and work just like Windows 7. I don't know how that can be praise for windows 8.
    05-16-2014 06:54 PM
  19. Steve Itman's Avatar
    ...you know that you can download and use the regular Skype desktop app, yes?
    In nothing but fullscreen mode right?
    05-16-2014 06:55 PM
  20. Steve Itman's Avatar
    Even if you just ignore the start screen, there are many new features that make life much easier. I'm not even going to bring them up because everyone that's here and reading this stuff either knows what these things are or they are just here to hate anything MS does.
    My career delivering Microsoft based software solutions so I definitely do not hate Microsoft just Windows 8. I am still waiting to hear about all those "many new features that make life easier". I've used Win 8 everyday for a year now. I do not use the useless Metro. I also have a Win 7 PC. I can fathom no advantage Win 8 gives me. Boot up times have almost imperceptible differences (except for the fact Win 8 blue screens all the time so I get to see that boot a lot - partly my fault as I have refused to update to 8.1).
    05-16-2014 07:01 PM
  21. Steve Itman's Avatar
    I'm sceptical. I just don't see a single UI paradigm being equally capable in both touch and traditional desktop environments at the same time.
    There's really no point to having one that can do that. Another writer mentioned Microsoft's consolidation move is about as important to users as having matching socks and underwear. They are completely different usage scenarios with very different hardware and user interfaces. Microsoft did it simply to train us to like Windows phones/tablets.
    05-16-2014 07:03 PM
  22. Steve Itman's Avatar
    I've noticed that the people I know who like Win 8 are people whose career involves significant desktop support. Anyone else hates it. (except for kids who have the computer to play). Is this over-generalizing?
    05-16-2014 07:04 PM
  23. a5cent's Avatar
    But what you described *is* ModernUI with a different skin. Why would they start a third separate API/runtime?
    Not a third separate API, but a newer version of the Win32 API that is purged of all the outdated concepts that exist purely for compatibility's sake. The idea would be to make it as easy as possible to port Win32 based applications into a cleaner, more secure environment that jives well the concepts introduced by WinRT, without forcing developers to sacrifice one or two decades worth of investments in Win32 software. IMHO that is not something Windows Store apps can achieve, because the differences between WinRT and Win32 are insurmountable.

    I don't think anyone would have to "get adobe to write" it. They'll want to. And with the high level of code portability, it won't be that hard.
    Where do you see this high level of code portability between Win32 and WinRT? I see zero.

    Now to do some speculation. Look at iPhone and iPad. You make one app, and you can have that app present a different UI depending on which device it is being run on. What's to say ModernUI won't eventually have something like that?
    Nothing. I just wouldn't call that "ModernUI". I'd call that WinRT with support for multiple UI paradigms. One being touch centric (ModernUI) the other being the traditional desktop UI. Like I said, IE is already doing something like that.

    Either way, our differences are small compared to what others here think. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you either. I'm just extremely sceptical that MS will ever get companies with large investments in desktop software to port those applications over to WinRT. It's too different, it doesn't perform as well as Win32, and more than everything else, I think it's far too costly.

    I think this is an interesting debate, but I'll let you have the last word on this since we're probably getting a bit off topic. ;-)
    link68759 likes this.
    05-16-2014 07:09 PM
  24. a5cent's Avatar
    One of the most useful, most ergonomic features created on the mouse and Microsoft disabled it because there is no right-click on a Windows phone. Brilliant!
    Don't understand. I can right click all over the place on the start screen. Works fine for me. In W8.0 the RMB really wasn't that useful, but the reason wasn't because there is no right-click on a Windows Phone. It's because your finger can't touch the screen in a left-click or right-click kind of way. It's been improved in W8.1

    ...you know that you can download and use the regular Skype desktop app, yes?
    In nothing but fullscreen mode right?
    Of course not. You can use it just like you always used Skype on the desktop. Are you sure you are using Windows 8?

    I've noticed that the people I know who like Win 8 are people whose career involves significant desktop support. Anyone else hates it. (except for kids who have the computer to play). Is this over-generalizing?
    Probably. I can only speak for myself and I certainly don't fall into the desktop support category. A job like that would kill me.
    05-16-2014 07:17 PM
  25. Steve Itman's Avatar
    Don't understand. I can right click all over the place on the start screen. Works fine for me. In W8.0 the RMB really wasn't that useful, but the reason wasn't because there is no right-click on a Windows Phone. It's because your finger can't touch the screen in a left-click or right-click kind of way. It's been improved in W8.1



    Of course not. You can use it just like you always used Skype on the desktop. Are you sure you are using Windows 8?



    Probably. I can only speak for myself and I certainly don't fall into the desktop support category. A job like that would kill me.
    Go to useless Metro Interface. Open the useless PDF viewer, you know the one that will force a PDF doc to fill your entire 27" monitor and not allow you to window it like approximately 99% of users would want. Try to right-click somewhere. What happens? For me nothing. I get no context menu, one of the most useful things ever put into Windows. Using Win 8. (have not "upgraded" to 8.1 yet)
    05-16-2014 07:25 PM
190 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. The WP 8.1 laggy experience when returning to start screen. Do you experience something similar?
    By grininja in forum Windows Phone 8.1 Preview for Developers
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 08-27-2014, 05:57 PM
  2. Windows Phone 8.1 ROM out yet?
    By generalsu in forum Windows Phone 8.1 Preview for Developers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 07:15 PM
  3. How do you upload an image from computer?
    By MrWhiteman in forum Site Feedback & Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-02-2014, 09:19 AM
  4. Candy crush for windows phone 8.1
    By isabella001 in forum Windows Phone Games
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2014, 01:45 PM
  5. Glance screen flipping upside down for users, here's why
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2014, 11:20 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD