Want a Windows 8 Start Button? Open source to the rescue! Windows 8 users need not do without a Start button, thanks to an open source application titled Classic Shell that can banish the Interface Formerly Known As Metro (TIFKAM). El Reg's antipodean lab installed Classic Shell on a Windows 8 RTM virtual machine running under Oracle VirtualBox on Mac OS 10.7.4. We can report that …
More likely an update will come which makes metro tolerable to desktop users. As it is there is way too much mouse travel involved and the metro screen is woefully inadequate for managing the number of programs and groups the average user may have. Interestingly if you choose All apps from the metro it will group apps (sort of) with a program group heading. Does it allow users to make their own groups? Noooo.
Everything is just so much of an extra effort in Windows 8. Lots of reviews contain lines such as "once i learned mysterious-key-combo things became so much easier" which just shows how hard MS have failed here.
I think they'll fix it eventually and maybe people will wonder what the fuss is about but metro as it stands sucks on a desktop and does a piss poor job of replacing what came before.
Interesting you talk about how far you have to move your mouse: I was talking the other day with a Mac user about the awkward positioning of the app menu at the top of the screen instead of attached to application windows (as per Windows). On a laptop this is a bit awkward, but on high res screens this must surely be a serious PITA right?? Not to mention the disconnect of not having an app's command where the app window is?
So I'm wondering is this a problem for frequent Mac users, something they'd like addressed even, or do you just get used to it?
"So I'm wondering is this a problem for frequent Mac users, something they'd like addressed even, or do you just get used to it?"
Actually, that menu is a lot easier to get at than the Windows ones: the pointer can't go beyond the edge of the screen at that point—unless you've deliberately rearranged a multi-monitor set up to do so. Which would be weird. That menu is, in effect, infinitely "tall" as a result, so you just fling the pointer in the general direction of the menu item you want and you're done.
On Windows, the menus are below the title bar, so you have to be a lot more precise.
(Incidentally, there are books on all this. It's a known science.)
One thing that Windows 8 is doing is playing catch-up with Apple's move away from the increasingly archaic WIMP system. The mouse is a particularly annoying peripheral: it's the biggest cause of RSI, for a start. Furthermore, the vast majority of traditional computers sold today are laptops, not desktops. Optimising the GUI for (multi-touch) trackpads makes a lot of sense in that context. Apple already offer their standalone Bluetooth trackpad with their iMacs now. Microsoft's "Surface" tablet keyboard cover also appears to include a trackpad below the keys (though it's not always obvious in the pictures).
For those who have a desktop computer, you can always buy a Wacom tablet that also supports multitouch gestures. Such gestures haven't been brilliantly supported on Windows 7, but Windows 8 seems to do a better job. (Apple's "Magic Trackpad"* isn't officially supported on Windows and is a bit pricey anyway. The Wacom alternative does more for roughly the same price.)
Kiss that plastic rodent goodbye, because it's not going to be around much longer. And good riddance, frankly.
* (You'd never have guessed Steve Jobs had a seat on Disney's board of directors.)
> Actually, that menu is a lot easier to get at than the Windows ones:
> the pointer can't go beyond the edge of the screen at that point...
> so you have to be a lot more precise
Ah, the classic Fitt's law argument. With the classic flaw. Unless you just want to quit the program you also need to move the mouse *back* from the menu to the working area.
So, for maximized windows it indeed makes sense to place menus at screen edge (i.e. they'd better be fullscreen, not just maximized) while for everything else menus in the window win if the movement back is included.
Trackpads are the abomination - always jumping of with a life of their own - triggering themselves off when using the keyboard. Try setting them up to suit yourself - then get sweaty fingers (it's HOT here) - or need to support a different users laptop - UGGH.
I always have a spare mouse for when I need to work on an "alien" system - otherwise I'd tear our my own hair and the owners haor too !
Also: OS X supports adding keyboard shortcuts to any menu item in any application as standard.
Power users therefore assign such shortcuts to commands they use most often and therefore hardly ever have to touch the mouse or trackpad anyway. (The user-defined shortcuts appear in the menus automatically—you don't even have to quite the application—and, yes, it'll work with Microsoft's apps too. It's a built-in feature of the Cocoa API; developers don't have to do anything to support it.)
When I use Windows, I find I prefer its CUA-derived keyboard support. I find [ALT]+F(ile) > O(pen) much easier to remember than seemingly arbitrary combinations of modifier keys and random letters for the more direct command shortcuts. The CUA system has the advantage of being (a) universal: any menu command can be accessed using this system, even if it lacks a direct shortcut; (b) consistent in every properly designed application, and (c), it's very easy to learn. Especially if your memory works best with spatial data.
This is one area where Apple did the right thing: their keyboards have had three modifier keys since the first Mac was launched. MS-DOS had just CTRL and ALT, while Windows 95 added that Windows Logo key. The latter has quite a few system-wide shortcuts linked to it that most people know nothing about, but I've never seen it used directly in applications, so it's basically wasted. Which is a shame, really.
It'll be interesting to see where Apple take this with OS XI. I suspect they'll ditch the ancient desktop metaphor entirely with that one. And Microsoft clearly want their developers to move towards Metro instead of the traditional desktop interface too.
"I was talking the other day with a Mac user about the awkward positioning of the app menu at the top of the screen instead of attached to application windows (as per Windows). "
That's been a real design flaw in the Mac OSs from way back, even as far back as the time Apple made otherwise great computers. And that's a long time ago now. I don't know why they haven't fixed it.
It is brilliant ... As others pointed out, you just flung the mouse up in the direction of the menu item you want, cannot go past it ... cool on laptops as well, just swift the finger - on large screens, max out acceleration !!! Besides, Macs have standard shortcuts for most things and an easy edit screen to create new ones ...
What most ui designers do not get is the fact that we have plenty of horizontal yet limited vertical screen real-estate. All ui's I have seen on a computer so far have menus at the top .... put them to the right-hand side, you morons, coz makes much more sense as that is where the eye is trained to look first anyway for most (sorry Israel etc).
Indeed, to me, Mac user interfaces have never been logical and I absolutely hate the trend of other UIs copying them.
e.g. Windows 7 taskbar with lots of excessively large icons in view for no reasonc, Ubuntu and GNOME making themselves Mac-like by moving menus to the top, Ubuntu moving close button to left for no reason.
KDE FTW -- the only desktop UI that seems to innovate on common sense and logic rather than fashion!
The Mac menubar's positioning isn't really a large factor in usability to be honest. As pointed out, it being at the top makes it effectively infinitely tall for hitting with a cursor so that's good, but it always sits at the top of whichever screen you nominate as your main one so getting to it can be a real task, which is bad.
There's only one, which makes more compact, which is good. But that means that it's modal, which is bad.
From a subjective point of view, neither of the goods or the bads outweighs the other.
In practice I think it's even less of an issue because people that use computers a lot tend to use keyboard shortcuts anyway. Besides the task specific command+s for save/etc, the best Mac one for the menubar is command+shift+forward slash. That opens the search box in the 'help' pull down, so then you just type the name of the menu bar command you want (or some section of it) and hit enter as a sort of menubar-specific take on quick launchers.
It's always been there on the Mac. The Amiga, ST and loads of other GUI OSes put the menu at the top.
It's actually a lot easier to go to the top of the screen than it is to go to a menu which may vary slightly in location. You can slam the pointer to the stop of the screen and not miss as the mouse pointer stops when it reaches the edge of the screen.
never ever understood why you would have one menu system (for the app) at the top; and the os menu system at the bottom.
Put 'em both in the same place - want to do ANYTHING - menu for that is at the top...
However; now we have wide screens - the OS menu goes to the left (or right) -- and that is where I want my APPS menu too - gives me more real estate for the app that way
Not that Micro$oft has ever had the moveable task bar working properly; par for the course; Micro$oft; no standardisation across their own apps; half the stuff works at best 90% utter ruddy fail
Well, app at the top, OS at the bottom makes some sense to me. At least more than Ubuntu last time I used it, which had OS at the top and bottom and app attached to the windows.
Also, with the Mac it's pretty easy to move the OS menu bar (i.e., dock) to a side and it's perfectly functional, whereas the last time I tried this with Ubuntu, I couldn't adjust the width of the menu due to a bug and thus couldn't see the names of any of the windows.
"But why leave Win7 if there are features you miss in Win8?"
Good question. In Windows 8's defence it does IMO have some useful improvements. File Copy is far better implemented and even the ribbon style explorer is a step up on the IE-esque explorer in W7. But the metro UI and lack of start menu would annoy a lot of people.
I suppose if someone produced a reasonable start menu replacement it might just tip someone towards w8. I wouldn't be so convinced that the replacement was good until I used it for a long while though because MS would have polished the experience to a shiny point, not something that a few month old project is likely to replicate very well for a long time to come.
It's "support".
Sooner or later the likes of Apple will stop supporting you and you will be unable to run latest version of doo-dad. Trapping your OS in the past means that you have to trap your apps and drivers in the past too. Not everyone is cool with that.
There's also security fixes to consider.
I have installed it on two pcs, one as a clean install, one as an upgrade. The clean install machine is incredibly quick to start and I would not go back to 7 for anything. Metro would not have been my first choice, but you get used to it, and I spend most of my time using applications, not the underlying OS. The upgrade, incidentally, took a long time to install and, although quicker that 7 (both running and starting up/shutting down) it is not so spectacular as the clean install - as I suppose it shouldn't be.
I eagerly await being voted down for giving the facts about my own experiences.
From my brief testing of the Windows 8 RC in a Parallels virtual machine, I wasn't able to do very much, but I could do it quite a bit quicker than in Windows 7 in a Parallels VM on the same MacBook. If I could get the Windows 8 performance improvements with a Windows 7 interface, then I would move to it.
You may be interested in WinSplit Revolution, good sir. I'm on 7 of course, but still, WinSplit Revolution is an improved version of Aero Snap. You can customise the snapping percentages, snap to corners, remember the window position and snap to that... and so on.
The default hotkeys honk a bit, though. I recommend Win+Numpad combinations to toss windows into all corners of the screen.
Aero Glass is awful, esp. if you don't have perfect eyesight. I find seeing a blurry image of what's under the window I'm trying to focus on VERY distracting, and turn it off asap!
As to having to hack an OS with a third-party add-on to make the user interface acceptable, well that's just a major FAIL.
This post has been deleted by its author
I have been using classic shell for ages and knew they were experimenting with Win 8 previews.
I haven't tried it on Win 8. The interesting part is how well it gets rid of TIFKAM. I bet it still sits there wasting disk space and memory.
What happens for example when you stick in a CD, does it still pop up a big stupid tile saying 'finger me' or something? Seeing that pop up on the desktop convinced me I had seen enough of that last Win 8 preview (about 30 minutes worth).
In fact this program resolves two issues for those who do not have a touch screen or wish to work primarily in desktop even if they do. Not only does one have a very familiar start menu but the pc default boots to desktop when you restart or shut down and restart (I have very recently installed it and tested it myself). As far as the rest of the operating system goes for desk top users it is in fact somewhat faster and more efficient than Win7. Having said that of course, if one has a good Win7 install that one is happy with and touch interactions are not relevant then there is not an amazingly strong case for upgrading. However, don't let facts get in the way and spoil your enjoyment of your membership of the Anti Microsoft Choral Howling Society.
For the simpleton it will be. They'll go... "this isn't Windows! Where's the god-damn start button I've been accustomed to for 15+ years!? Boxes? What do these boxes do? I can't touch them, I have no touch screen monitor. Oh, I need to be sold a touch screen monitor for it to work? Oh damn, I've been conned by PC World to spend more money than I needed. Now I'm broke and confused."
Anyway to @AC 02:36 - good luck having fun pointless navigating between two different screens just because Microsoft didn't think about the common desktop user. *waves* That's why the icon is a smiley one. I certainly won't be touching it unless forced upon me like a nasty rash.
Cool, nice to see they're still in business. This sure brings back memories!
I've used Stardocks object desktop (iirc) on OS/2 for years. Not so much because the default was lacking or something, but because their software really enhanced the options. Good to see they now turned their attention to Windows.
I've tried this already but I wasn't totally impressed as all it does is link a version of TIFKAM start to a start-like icon. Also tried ViStart but although it worked a lot more like a Windows 7 setup, none of the right-clicks were there and it regular borked on closedown.
This certainly looks promising and merits a quick boot on my W8 test virtualbox when I get home!
...with a light-on-dark colour scheme that actually works across applications...
...with the ability to get rid of desktop icons and the start menu and put everything on RMB and MMB menus...
...with the ability to define a virtual desktop larger than my LCD size...
...with a display manager that didn't create new dialogues behind all the other windows...
...with a display manager that didn't allow a buggy application to freeze all the other applications...
But I guess that wouldn't be Windows then, would it.
I can live with the Metro Style Start bar, and I've even, after four months of searching, found some useful metro apps - it more the constant switching between (ex) Metro and (ex) Aero to do simple tasks that's annoying.
but when using a mouse the way you do in XP or 7 on Windows 8, it's all too easy to trigger the charms or active corners if going for the Close button/File Menu/System Clock. The Disable Active corners part of this program has me intrigued, and it'll probably be the first extension on once I switch from CP to RTM.
You're new here aren't you? Mac OS and Linux are able to get viruses, there are many malicious Mac programs out there some for Linux lax security in any software will attract the nasties and should be protected against. I can't find a recent El Reg article on any Linux virus/malware/spyware etc. and there are far too many Mac articles to mention here.
So what if you are new around here. Obviously you've taken a look at so called "Linux". What is Linux anyway? There are so many distros, it would be very difficult to create a virus that could spread even if a flaw could be exploited, which would be patched very quickly. Sure you could attack a subset, say Ubuntu, then again, quick security patches. Obviously you've not been around long enough to know that a true electromagnetic virus does not exist as a file or files. But in this day and age, with all you newcomers, everything that makes your computer not work is a virus. "OMG!!! A virus! Take my money and CPU cycles! Just keep me safe from the viruses!" It's a known fact that all of the security suites combined cannot keep Windows safe from viruses.
Ah, another person who likes to spread FUD about the number of distros.
On the other hand, there are possible ways to break some distros where others would stand firm. The thing is whether you are likely to come across these distros on a general sweep of the Internet.
So the poster of this particular thread was a little naive about the whole subject. Yes, Linux is a lot more secure against attack by malware, mostly because of the design and the practices of many users out there, but bear in mind that this is not a foolproof setup.
1. Generally, Linux users don't run in administrative accounts in the way that so many Windows users do. In fact, many distros discourage it. That, however, doesn't mean that all users follow the advice.
2. It is an accepted fact, as far as I know, that one big reason for a lack of Linux viruses is that there are a lot less Linux machines in the world that Windows ones. That means that most virus writers out there are aiming at the big dog right now. THIS CAN CHANGE. It doesn't necessarily mean that they can't rip a Linux distro apart. ISTR a rather nasty SSH bug a while back, not to mention a problem with a bug in some Debian based distros.
However, before going off on a "if you don't like Windows, install Linux" kick, it's worth remembering that just as not all virus writers attack Linux, so a large number of software writers out there have no interest in writing for Linux, not even as far as getting their software to run under Wine. In fact, some of the software has a struggle to run properly even under Windows, from version to version or without having admin rights granted when running.
Bottom line: The only way to completely isolate your system from viruses is to switch it off, and a new OS doesn't necessarily solve problems.
To simply keep using win7, because it works, gets stuff done, and like '97SE and XP will carry over until M$ gets to it's senses, fire their marketing/hype department in it's entirety, and reverse this FUBAR.
Reams of keyboard shortcuts? They've obviously forgotten people *HATED* using PC's in the late 80's/90's exactly because you had to memorise reams of obscure key combo's before you could get anything done... With each program it's own combo's and... *shudder*
.. of yet another Open Source solution to a Microsoft made problem. It's like the 90s again where the only way to get a stable file and print server was to avoid Microsoft and sneak in a Linux box running samba (usually against management's wishes because MS FUD).
Plus ça change..
"Open Source you say? You shouldn't use that, it's a cancer, un-American, communistic and it's insecure
Start the bainwashing early.
Did exactly that.
For quite a large company the Windows 2000 server running mail/file sharing/domain logins had failed - continuously crashing etc.
MS weren't interested in helping me find the license numbers out so I could re-install - a bored MS helpdrone just said the company would have to by Win2000/exchange/CAL's etc again.
They needed to get running as they'd had no email for three months - so over one weekend I installed a Debian server, Postfix, Samba and they had file sharing, logins, email all working by the Monday. Then spent a few days tweaking it so that all PC's logging in picked up policy file etc and all users were locked down to be only be able to run office apps, Firefox etc. Got the Win98 PC's to defrag and chkdisk on every login.
(BTW - We also installed a secondary server place to take over from the Primary server if needed).
Result was that for several years they had incredibly reliable PC's and the server ran happily.
One manager tried to plug in a mouse to the server - and then was puzzled cos it only said 'Login:' and he then had no idea what to do. That was great because he left it alone.
Shame was that they took on a PC support guy who was 'MS only' who hated this server because the MD told him to leave it alone - but I think he eventually got his way and put in MS stuff cos I was eventually asked to shut the server down.
So - a Debian/Samba/Postfix server - had run perfectly non-stop for about five/six years (apart from one or two upgrades). It had looked after the domain requirements/profiles/email for approx 30/40 users.
And the server hardware - a Via mini-itx board with 256MB RAM and a couple of SCSI HDD's with an Adaptec RAID controller.
So - open source can even create a better Windows server than MS. Of course, groups policies are now unbelievably overcomplicated and MS did various tricks to try to make reverse engineering more complicated so I dont't know how Samba is these days - but I'm sure the Samba guys are still doing well.
Oh, so you were the cowboy who left behind half-b0rked Samba "BDCs" all over the place when the time and effort involved in standing up a vanilla domain controller and file server in Windows was *significantly* less.
Samba was adequate for doing file shares if you were too cheap to buy MS server operating system licences, but if cost wasn't a factor, it was a waste of time.
... it'll probably work on final release too.
Why?
Well, Microsoft - correct me if I'm wrong here - don't have a history of aggressively trying to thwart "enhancements" or "widgets" - call them what you will.
If it were Apple, completely different story.
I'm just amazed at how quickly devs have come up with an answer to the problem we all see for windows 8 desktop users.
"I'm just amazed at how quickly devs have come up with an answer to the problem we all see for windows 8 desktop users"
Working around Microsoft's decisions/unsupported software is becoming a growing industry. Look at the Office extensions that 'fix' the Ribbon and those chaps who offer a way to run IE6 dependent Legacy stuff in later IE versions.
Clarification required: is a "whinner" someone who wins, or someone who whines? I can't believe you mean someone who, er, "gorses" (definition of "whin").
Learning how to spell has the inestimable benefit of allowing people to understand you.
Oh, and the word is "disdain".
They remove all the disturbing new stuff and let you sit there pretending everything is as it always was.But you'll feel pretty silly when all those around you are able to manage Win8 perfectly well without additional tools.
"But the Start menu is better," you'll say.
"Why?" will come the reply straight back.
"Well, hierarchical menu lets me access more programs than I can fit on the Start Screen"
"I can comfortably fit twenty programs on the main screen on my laptop. Fifty on my Desktop monitory! How many programs do you regularly use, gramps" they will ask incredulously?
You'll count the programs you use regularly. It will come to about twenty if you're a power user.
"Well, it's quicker" you'll say in irritation.
At this point, the yoof will tap the Windows key and type 'wo' bringing up Word.
"That's not what I'm talking about!" you'll say angrily. "I can do the same thing in Windows 7"
"Well, if it's the same in both, then it's not a disadvantage, is it?" will say the increasingly irritating yob who probably has an asbo, you're sure of it.
"Yes, but maybe I want to use the mouse. Have you thought about that? There's no Start button in Windows 8"
"Well, it still works the same," says the brat as he moves the mouse pointer to the lower left and clicks.
"But without a button, how would you know how to do that? Huh? Huh? Explain to me that!"
"Well I just remember," says the yoof. "If you can remember where something is in the hierarchical Start menu, it's got to be even easier to just remember which of four corners does what, right?"
"That's not the point," you snap, wondering if you can catch offguard with your stick.
"Well, you'll like this," says the yoof trying to be helpful, "you know how when you have multiple monitors you have to move your mouse all the way to one end in order to click on the Start button? Well in Win 8 the corners are active on every screen and it also has this nice little mouse capture so that you don't overshoot onto the other screen like you might if you had the Win7 Start Button there. Isn't that nice?"
"No! No it isn't! WHERE ARE MY WERTHERS ORIGINALS!"
"And the Start Screen!" you continue. "It takes up the whole page!"
"So? Did you ever keep staring at the Desktop whilst you navigated the Start menu in Win7?"
"And what if I want to change a setting? Eh? Eh?!?!"
"Bottom right. Or Win+C if you don't want to leave the keyboard"
"But that's only got the commonly used settings that I would typically need! What if I want to do something obscure like manage hardware once every couple of months?"
"Windows key and type 'co'. Bang - control panel!"
"But it doesn't give me anything extra! I don't need it! Steve Ballmer is forcing it down our throats! Why don't you hate what I hate you stupid kid!"
"Nothing extra apart from many common tasks requiring less clicks or keypresses...?" The yoof screws up his face in puzzlement. "Well," he says after a moment, "there's this..." At which point he pulls the screen from the keyboard, and happily does everything he did before again, but this time without a keyboard.
"NURSE!" you cry. "Bring me my XP discs. Hurry! The youth of today! They don't hate Microsoft anymore! What's wrong with them???"
""So? Did you ever keep staring at the Desktop whilst you navigated the Start menu in Win7?""
Leads to - Why doesn't the speedometer on a car jump up and obscure the road completely!?
Surely when you are looking at the speedo you aren't looking at the road right?
Very valid point and can the TIFKAM developers have their cars set up like that please.
===
I can see some of it makes sense on some touch or multi-screen setups but the grab whole screen thing on a single monitor PC is WRONG.
"Well, you'll like this," says the yoof trying to be helpful, "you know how when you have multiple monitors you have to move your mouse all the way to one end in order to click on the Start button? Well in Win 8 the corners are active on every screen and it also has this nice little mouse capture so that you don't overshoot onto the other screen like you might if you had the Win7 Start Button there. Isn't that nice?"
I like being able to access things from the bottom left corner of each monitor. It's a nice addition for me.
Is there any way you know of making it not take-over the entire screen with new metro[whatever...] app? ie if I wanted to look at a webpage and my email in the same screen?
Or what about having settings open in one monitor and trying to open a webpage/email/whatever in the other monitor - does the dev release still hide the settings screen just to open the other?
(Probably not making myself clear - but this is tricky)
Oh yeah - and having internet explorer open differently to the metro internet explorer - is just plain weird!?
"Is there any way you know of making it not take-over the entire screen with new metro[whatever...] app? ie if I wanted to look at a webpage and my email in the same screen?"
Not with the Metro apps other than the 2/3rds and 1/3rd snapping of Metro apps.That would let you,e.g. look at a webpage whilst you had your email in a sidebar. It's okay for some things, like I've had the Financial app on 1/3rd of the screen (the left-most monitor) and had Desktop (which is technically a Metro app in its way) filling up the remaining 2/3rds of the left monitor and all of the right. That way the Metro app functions as a kind of live side bar showing emails, Social Networking feeds or whatever you want whilst not actually taking over the whole screen. It's handy sometimes, but not a fits-all solution. Normally, when I want to multi-task, I just use the Desktop programs and not Metro-apps which I see as more useful for tablets and RT users than if I'm using a Desktop with two monitors. After all, if I have Thunderbird or Outlook running on the Desktop, there's no big reason to use the Metro mail app. (Though as a side-bar, it does the job of letting me work whilst just ticking along on the edge of my vision).
"Or what about having settings open in one monitor and trying to open a webpage/email/whatever in the other monitor - does the dev release still hide the settings screen just to open the other?"
If I'm reading you right, then Settings (as in the side-bar) will close when you start doing something else, but the reverse isn't true. So if you were copying VPN settings from an email or something, that wouldn't be hidden just because you brought up the settings in a side-bar. Not sure if I got your meaning, but that might answer the question. You can still use Control Panel in its own window on Desktop if you want also.
"Oh yeah - and having internet explorer open differently to the metro internet explorer - is just plain weird!?"
Yeah - that's fucked up. I actually prefer the Metro version normally because you get more screen estate. But I switch back to the Desktop one when I want to work with my bookmarks, copy from Browser to emails, etc. That needs work.
Not too worried about the full start menu - rarely use it anyway. most of the time I just type the name of the application into the search box. The way WIndows 8 implements this is really nice - just type and they all appear quickly.
However, I'd install this just to be rid of the metro tiles - if I wanted giant application icons littering the screen, I'd just muck up my display settings.
So long as jump list still work, I may now think about the move to Win 8.
I thought that was one of the advantages of this, taken from the article (you did read it didnt you?)
"There's even an option to load up Windows 8 without ever seeking the TIFKAM screen, while the app also happily disables the “active corners” features that invokes the tiled interface."
I thought I'd hate windows 8, I downloaded it, slapped it in a VM and actually USED it (now there's a radical approach)
Anyway, would I go out and buy it? Not right away now
Could I use it if I HAD to? Sure, no problem, it's really not the end of the computing world as we know it
Would I like it if it had a "classic Install" option or even a "default to desktop" option right out of the box? Sure
Download it for free, download a VM app for free, install them and try it, it really isn't too bad. Sure, Microsoft is "forcing" the new interface on you (Assuming that it is "forcing" you to do anything at all, like buying it in the first place, I mean it's not like you XP , Vista or 7 install is going to stop working as soon as Win8 is available to buy is it!) So don't buy it
It's certainly a great step forward (well, backwards, technically, but you know what I mean) to have a start menu that doesn't fill the full screen just to launch a program, but is there any chance we can fix metro apps to not be full screen too?
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to create something whereby metro apps launch inside draggable resizeable windows, so that they play nicely with a desktop OS rather than a tablet one. Metro apps must be able to display at different sizes (due to different screen resolutions), and if you have multiple monitors then you can display them on just one of those, so there can't be a technical limitation in having both a metro app and normal windows programs displayed at the same time.
Ironic that FLOSS is helping Windows, but Gnome is foundering. Cinnamon is really not a great replacement for Gnome 2. It's better than Unity or Gnome 3, but that's not a high bar to clear. Given how much of Gnome 3 is not changed (Nautilus, Evolution, etc.) I don't understand why we cannot have our panel back, but...
> Cinnamon is really not a great replacement for Gnome 2.
I've found that Gnome2 is a good replacement for Gnome2.
Runs nicely on F16. I'll have to start trying F17 soon.
I was reading some rather depressing stuff about the Gnome project recently. I'd not be too surprised to see either a full-scale fork or an about-turn...
Vic.
why do people have such an obsessive requirement for old technology?! Move with the times, the start orb is gone and the metro / modern start button is here to stay. No doubt i'll get voted down, but that's the truth so deal with it!
It's a bit like people still wanting to use XP - i dont get that at all, you're 3 O/S's behind now! keep up! Change is good and it isn't going to stop!
> why do people have such an obsessive requirement for old technology?! Move with the times,
People are probably more obsessed with productivity, suitability to task, and having to expend effort to re-learn how to do things.
Change only for the sake of change is wasted effort in my opinion... I'm looking at the cost vs. reward.
"why do people have such an obsessive requirement for old technology?!"
Well, because it actually does what they want under most circumstances and they don't really feel the need to invest in newer stuff until they need too. My old dev machine, (7 years old first ed Athlon dual core), was fine until I hit a brick wall on processing speed. For all the mundane stuff, like coding/text editing, looking at the internet, games, etc, it was perfectly adequate. Only needed to upgraded for some serious number crunching - which the old kit could do, but I can only drink so much tea during the day, and in the evening beer doesn't last long either.
I can see the need to move forward, but actually Win8 isn't moving forward, it's going backwards in it's aims.
"why do people have such an obsessive requirement for old technology?"
You have it backwards. I remember when all applications ran fullscreen, however simple they were. Breaking the PC out of its single screen DOS beginning is how Microsoft got so rich and powerful. I have no intention of being dragged back to the fullscreen computing stone age by Metro just because Microsoft need to bludgeon potential tablet & phone buyers into submission.
I welcome useful change. My PC is not a low capability device and doesn't need dumbing down.
"u lot make me laugh, stuck in the dark ages you all are... i bet you'll be running XP & wishing for the start orb when your grandkids are grandparents... going on about how 'it just works' even though no-one else actually uses it or is interested in it anymore!"
From your use of English you betray your age. Somewhere in the teens I'm guessing?
For the rest of us who are slightly older - we generally use a computer *TO GET A JOB DONE*
This is a very important point you seem to be missing. If a new feature helps with that - then bring it on. We may put up a little fight in the beginning, but will realise our errors eventually.
The start menu fiasco is maybe one of those times - maybe. I have used it myself and don't think much of it, but who knows - maybe it will grow on me.
It's the whole 'we know best' behaviour that annoys me/us the most. Going forward with obvious stupid decisions for the desktop just to reconcile windows with tablets is plainly fucking idiotic.
... you're hacking a Nissan Y30? Now THAT is cool!
Where are you getting the 270HP? Gut feeling is a modified VG30DET motor ... Me, I'd probably go with a tuned Buick 215ci V8 ... That's a Rover 3.5L to you Brits.
Unfortunately, you probably mean the seriously ugly Chrysler "hearse with a trunk" ...
I'm going to be controversial here in that I've actually used Windows 8 in the Release and Consumer preview versions and thanks to Action Pack I have the final release version too. Admittedly having worked in various IT roles for the last 20 years I'm not necessarily your average desktop user but after half an hour of my first experience with Windows 8 I was completely happy with it and the lack of the Start button. I can see why people would want to keep that comfort there but I would say that if you can work without the Start button (remember that the O/S is just the platform for your apps, services and games) then I'd encourage you to do so. I've found Win + R, Win + F, Win + X and Win + D give me everything I need to get right into the guts of the O/S and use it get my daily grind done. To that end I've replaced Win7 entirely on my laptop and desktop machines and by Christ does Win8 run fast! Just saying :)
io_uring is getting more capable, and PREEMPT_RT is going mainstream The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
