Windows Blue

Antar Bolaeisk

There's now a leaked build of Windows Blue in the wild should you know where to look. Nothing majorly new in the build though there's a lot more customisation available on the start screen so as the ability, and stay with me now as this is pretty complicated stuff, the ability to split your screen in half rather than the current restriction of 80:20 in Windows 8. Crazy stuff.

Those of you backward people who still miss the start button need not apply as microsoft have no intention of returning it though hopefully they'll listen to the complaints about the 'modern user interface' and adjust accordingly in Windows Blue.

Antar Bolaeisk

Some more information: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/windows-blue-leaks-more-metro-more-multitasking/

Really just sounds like a lot of refinements to the metro interface (er, I mean modern ui) rather than a new OS at the moment.

200motels

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

There's now a leaked build of Windows Blue in the wild should you know where to look. Nothing majorly new in the build though there's a lot more customisation available on the start screen so as the ability, and stay with me now as this is pretty complicated stuff, the ability to split your screen in half rather than the current restriction of 80:20 in Windows 8. Crazy stuff.

Those of you backward people who still miss the start button need not apply as microsoft have no intention of returning it though hopefully they'll listen to the complaints about the 'modern user interface' and adjust accordingly in Windows Blue.

Just because we like the old start button doesn't make us backwards, so less of those type of comments.

Torqay

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Those of you backward people who still miss the start button need not apply

Right, then I won't bother you dumbed-down sheeple who happily eat any sh*t Microsoft is feeding you.

How does that sound to you?

Fysh

It sounds interesting, though I have to say that I don't understand why MS insisted on pushing out Win8 with what was clearly a half-baked implementation of the Modern UI. Certainly my experience has been that Modern UI applications are of no interest to me (no surprise really, I'm on a desktop) and that the Modern UI menu screen is reasonably useful only when you spend some time getting rid of all the crap MS wants you to use and repopulating it with contextually-grouped shortcuts to the stuff you actually use.

Hopefully Blue will improve the concept to the point that it can actually be considered a compelling feature. Will be interesting to see it once legitimate releases are available.

Overheal

200motels wrote: »

Just because we like the old start button doesn't make us backwards, so less of those type of comments.

Do you miss this experience? Do you really?

You can just use the Jumplist on File Explorer and use the start search for everything else:



Woe, you may have to Right click it instead of left click it, but theres 50% of the Start Menu's functionality right there. The other half is in the search. That Shut Down is 3 clicks away instead of 2 now is not the end of my world.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Woe, you may have to Right click it instead of left click it, but theres 50% of the Start Menu's functionality right there.

And why should I be happy with pressing the right button and only getting half of what I got from the left button (if that)? Sorry, but this ain't good enough.

Overheal

I refer you back to an xkcd comic :P

Dan_Solo

All Blue needs is the options that we now get from 3rd party applications or reg hacks in Windows 8: skip the lock screen, get rid of the annoying corners and edges in desktop mode etc.
Oh, and it'd be nice if it supported my goddam WiFi card properly!

Sir Oxman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

All Blue needs is the options that we now get from 3rd party applications or reg hacks in Windows 8: skip the lock screen, get rid of the annoying corners and edges in desktop mode etc.
Oh, and it'd be nice if it supported my goddam WiFi card properly!

It seems it will be going the opposite way - much more integration of all control panel items in Modern UI's PC Settings for instanc.

Will they jump the shark and get rid of the desktop completely(eventually)??

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Will they jump the shark and get rid of the desktop completely(eventually)??

If they do, I'm gone. Might as well just use an Android tablet in that case.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Do you miss this experience? Do you really?

I do actually. Because it encouraged me to uninstall some crap when the menu got too big.

_Kaiser_

Torqay wrote: »

And why should I be happy with pressing the right button and only getting half of what I got from the left button (if that)? Sorry, but this ain't good enough.

+1

Overheal: Every post of yours I read here is extolling the virtues of Windows 8 and suggesting that those who don't willingly embrace the reduced functionality (for no good reason than because MS wants some of that Apple pie) are somehow computing dinosaurs.

If you like the whole "Modern" interface then that's (genuinely) great, but you need to accept that there are a lot of people who don't and who feel it negatively impacts their productivity as a result of the unnecessary changes to the Desktop "app"

I've played with Win 8 extensively on a tablet and regular laptop. On the former it's not bad - until it kicks you back to the classic interface with it's not-designed-for-fingers icons and menus (which happens a LOT)

On the latter it's just an annoyance. I never see the Start screen or the "apps", never venture beyond the Desktop and installed Start 8 because I don't have time to faff around with unnecessary extra clicks and oversized cartoon blocks on my 23" monitor.

All that was needed was an option during Setup "We've detected you are not using a touch interface. Do you wish to enable the classic Start Menu?" and everyone could be happy.

Live and let live man. Just because not everyone shares your view doesn't make them wrong either.

200motels

http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/forget-about-windows-blue-stay-focused-windows-7-215

Overheal

Id be happy with the setup detecting Time Zone first..

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

Id be happy with the setup detecting Time Zone first..

I'm still upset that you can't pick your time zone on the map anymore.

GreenWolfe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm still upset that you can't pick your time zone on the map anymore.

Apparently the Indian government had a problem with a disputed zone that was assigned to Pakistan on Microsoft's map. They had to make a special version of Windows 95 just for them, and then removed the feature altogether. This type of nonsense still goes on today of course, for example I'd imagine the Chinese or Japanese governments wouldn't be happy if such a map showed the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands belonging to the other country.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/22/54679.aspx

Overheal

Stardock reveals ModernMix

http://www.stardock.com/products/modernmix/index.asp?playdemovideo=1&utm_source=StardockSoftware&utm_medium=email&utm_term=03272013&utm_content=HEADERGFX&utm_campaign=Modern%2BMix%2BGA%2BAnnouncement

run Tile Apps in a window.

Overheal

Karsini wrote: »

I do actually. Because it encouraged me to uninstall some crap when the menu got too big.

I could see that. I just am not organized in such a hierarchical way, the search features since Vista have allowed for running of programs in a more "random access" manner which, all opinion aside, is a lot faster if you know what you're wanting to launch. I've been 'extolling' that feature since Vista.

I liken the revulsion to the new UI much like the revulsion to Windows, when it first came about. I mean, back on my first computer, which ran 3.1, it wasn't perfect. You still had to shut it down and go back into DOS for a lot of things (meaning Windows was more of a program than an operating system...right?) and you had things like DOS Shell and MS-DOS during the transitory years to accommodate the workflows and compatibilities of most users. Then Vista came along and you had the same bloody thing with a big push into "Compatibility Modes" and Virtual PC being common place. Even in XP, I recall my brother was very keen on it's "Classic Mode" - which threatened to burn my eyes out. But hey, when you grew fond of Win98/2K, thats what you wanted it to look and feel like.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I liken the revulsion to the new UI much like the revulsion to Windows, when it first came about. I mean, back on my first computer, which ran 3.1, it wasn't perfect. You still had to shut it down and go back into DOS for a lot of things (meaning Windows was more of a program than an operating system...right?) and you had things like DOS Shell and MS-DOS during the transitory years to accommodate the workflows and compatibilities of most users. Then Vista came along and you had the same bloody thing with a big push into "Compatibility Modes" and Virtual PC being common place. Even in XP, I recall my brother was very keen on it's "Classic Mode" - which threatened to burn my eyes out. But hey, when you grew fond of Win98/2K, thats what you wanted it to look and feel like.

When I went to Windows 95 I never looked back - Explorer beat Program Manager by a mile.

In XP I didn't use the Windows 2000 theme myself but I know many who did. To me it was just a colour scheme and it didn't affect my usability at all. I think it looks awful on Vista and 7 too.

I was thinking earlier, if they did drop the desktop from a later Windows release, would that mean the end of Windows on x86 too? Because if it only ran Modern apps then RT would be fine.

Overheal

I could see it only happening if regular programs went the way of 'apps' which for the forseeable future seems really far fetched.

In fact in the context of my look back to DOS it's like we've come full circle: dos programs, to windowed programs, back to dos programs, in a sense. full screen bastards

iMyself

There is no doubt windows RT has failed to deliver on the apps front, but as a UI it has enourmous potential. I've seen many iterations of OSes and its always boils down to people hating change. Personally I'm looking forward to watching it evolve, blue being the first small step.

As a desktop\server OS I have to say Windows 8 is great. I have replaced my home server running Windows Home Server 2011 and it is now basically turned my TV into an extremely intelligent smart HTPC\TV combo (controlled incidentily by an old android tablet which acts as a mouse, keyboard and remote control).

On my laptop, I see it as Windows 7 with a new start menu. I can't see how anyone can call Windows 8 Pro "crap" and windows 7 "the best", bloggers spouting this rubbish have clearly never used windows 8 because they are practically the same thing.

OK, if you love the start button and can't live without it, then stick with windows 7 (or should I say XP ?! ). It's hardly something worth shouting about tbh. Personally I would keep something like that to myself, nobody wants to hear it particually Microsoft.

The only thing I hate about RT\Metro is the lack of video\audio codecs. You get the same problem on all tablets and its only this year that we are starting to see tablets that can play a commonly encoded (HD) video file without having to convert it. But the frustrating thing is that windows could do it easily, they could even simply use the desktop version of media player. I understand they took the decision to leave out codecs to keep the cost down, thus allowing a €40 upgrade, but to me there should at least be an option to pay extra for access to the desktop media player. I've spent 2\3 years with an Android Tegra2 tablet that cannot play 99% of my video collection without having to first convert (a length 6 hours per movie!), something like this would give windows RT the edge over other tablets. They have the power of Windows at their disposal, why aren't they using it?! At least until the metro apps fiasco gets sorted.

thebman

The problem with the Metro interface on Windows 8 is the legacy interface.

The problem with the legacy interface is the Metro UI.

They are two different products mangled together.

Touch OS != mouse OS...

Overheal

thebman wrote: »

The problem with the Metro interface on Windows 8 is the legacy interface.

The problem with the legacy interface is the Metro UI.

They are two different products mangled together.

Touch OS != mouse OS...

The mouse wont be around forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA

Though again, I really don't have an issue with using 8 on a mouse and keyboard interface.

Antar Bolaeisk

thebman wrote: »

The problem with the Metro interface on Windows 8 is the legacy interface.

The problem with the legacy interface is the Metro UI.

They are two different products mangled together.

Touch OS != mouse OS...

I'd argue that it's more the apps themselves which I've found best to avoid, particularly if you do such crazy and amazing things as run more than one monitor. The start screen itself is mostly fine though redundant when you can type in what you want.

Rumour is now that Windows Blue could be officially called Windows 8.1 and essentially be a glorified service pack.

iMyself

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Rumour is now that Windows Blue could be officially called Windows 8.1 and essentially be a glorified service pack.

That's pretty much what it is but the difference is that there will be additional OS\UI features and functionality added, which you wouldn't normally see in a service pack.

thebman wrote:

The problem with the Metro interface on Windows 8 is the legacy
interface.

The problem with the legacy interface is the Metro
UI.

They are two different products mangled together.

Touch OS
!= mouse OS...

Disagree that touch interface is poor with a keyboard and mouse. Once you know how to use it its actually very nifty. but I would agree that desktop mode is poor on touch screen. Some buttons are just too tiny and take a few attempts to hit (the close button on a window for example). But I do like the way they have adapted file explorer to be usable on a touch screen. this was a big deal breaker for me when purchasing my Surface tablet.

That and discovering that you can indeed play all common video file types with a beauty of an app called mobile.hd :-)

Capt'n Midnight

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Rumour is now that Windows Blue could be officially called Windows 8.1 and essentially be a glorified service pack.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/windows_blue_version_8_1/

Lending credence to the rumor, Foley directs us to a Twitter post made by one @AngelWZR on Tuesday, which shows a screenshot from a recent build of Windows Blue bearing the new version number.
...
That choice makes some sense, given Microsoft's stated aim to ship a new major upgrade for Windows every year, rather than revamping the OS every few years as it had done previously. Presumably, we may yet see a Windows 8.2, 8.3, or further before Redmond finally delivers a version deemed worthy of being called Windows 9.

Windows NT 5.1 is XP