This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Exactly why did Microsoft include a Smartphone Interface in Windows 8?

#41DaedalusExPosted 3/2/2014 11:31:27 AM
Touchscreens are a rubbish technology. They are horridly inefficient, especially when compared to keyboard/mouse. Why the industry keeps pushing such an inefficient technology is beyond me.
#42bluemooglePosted 3/2/2014 12:19:15 PM
I think there is a big difference between disliking a specific change, and hating all change in general.

Some people may dislike W8 since they fear change, but others dislike W8 since they are not a fan of the direction it's going.
---
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
#43steveboblarryPosted 3/2/2014 12:29:36 PM
SinisterSlay posted...
jake-sf posted...
Orestes417 posted...
People made the same argument back when windows came out over dos and again when the start menu replaced the old ways of win 3.1 and again when ie got integrated into the 98 desktop and again when themes were added to xp... You begin to see a pattern?


That you're too dumb to see the difference.


Well I remember the first Windows resistance was how big it was.
Also, Windows 95 (which had IE3 integrated, later IE4) actually provided a windows 3.1 interface during installation. I don't think anyone opted for it because the start menu was so much better. You could still launch the 3.1 task launcher if you wanted. Just crash explorer.exe then press Control + Esc on your keyboard.
98 was a piece of junk sadly, even the SE version just made it slightly less stable than 95. Not sure why 98se is remembered so fondly, it was so broken it couldn't even shut down properly. And 95C had better USB support than 98se had....

People complained about Windows 2000 because it dumped all driver support (since it was not an evolution of the same branch of Windows, from a technical standpoint, it was understandable).

And then Microsoft made a stupid decision and changed the HAL in Windows Vista, again breaking all hardware support. Thankfully they didn't make that mistake a third time in Windows 8.

Windows 8 had a lot of problems, but it seems they mostly stem from the left hand not talking to the right hand. No one ever stepped back and went "this doesn't work".
Remember VS2012, and its black and white buttons and flat look. Apparently the VS team got the specs for how the new windows 8 would look and that's how they interpreted it. Funny thing though, the Windows 8 designers saw the finished product and were appalled, it wasn't what they meant. They wanted the product (vs2012) fixed but they shipped it anyways.
Notice VS2013 is fixed?
MS works in a very strange way, they would rather ship a bad product, then wait and get it right. They've done it several times. They did it with Win98, they did it with WinME, they did it (sort of) with Vista, they did it with Win8, they did it with Office 2007, then they did it with VS2012. They've done it with IE8 (can't be upgraded to from IE7 or it breaks the system!).
They keep doing it over and over. And it damages them every time.


Post of the day
---
IceJFish is the next drake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq_d8VSM0nw
#44TireseasPosted 3/2/2014 12:35:42 PM
I agree with most of what was said, but it wasn't 2000 people were complaining about (unless they had laptops). XP (and ME if they were hated by the gods) was when the 98 crowd go walloped by massive driver breakage in the mainstream. XP was also almost as bad as Vista was as far as system requirement hikes went.
---
More and more, it feels like I'm doing a really bad impersonation of myself.
#45SinisterSlayPosted 3/2/2014 1:00:23 PM
Tireseas posted...
I agree with most of what was said, but it wasn't 2000 people were complaining about (unless they had laptops). XP (and ME if they were hated by the gods) was when the 98 crowd go walloped by massive driver breakage in the mainstream. XP was also almost as bad as Vista was as far as system requirement hikes went.


XP when it came out had a requirement of 350mhz processor and 128mb of RAM.
Pretty much everyone in 2001 had that already.
Windows 2000 requirements are exactly the same. XP is 2000 but with extra themes.

2000 didn't sell because of the driver breakage (it being from the NT line instead of the 9x line). And the fact that it didn't appear to be any different from 98.
To try and make it sell, they came up with XP, the whole idea behind XP was to make it look different so it would sell. It was just looks. Under the hood, XP is the exact same system as 2000.

Also, to foster some sales between 2000 and XP, they made Windows ME, which was a revival of the 9x base that was pretty much abandoned. ME was a hack job out of 98se. An unstable OS built on top of an unstable OS. And it bombed massively because of it. But it's ok, because then we got XP a year later.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#46TireseasPosted 3/2/2014 1:25:59 PM(edited)
2000 didn't sell because it was never aimed at the consumer sector in the first place. Just like the rest of the NT line before it the real target was business use and in that it was exceedingly successful. The average consumer would've only encountered it in laptops and that was because it's acpi implementation was vastly superior.

Oh, and the requirements at the time were more like 64 MB minimum for 2000, with XP doubling that and realistically requiring 256MB ram to truly run well. 2000 didn't start demanding 128MB till after the second or maybe third expac.

EDIT: Actually, I just looked it up to double check. The minimum supported ram on 2000 was 32MB. 64 was minimum recommended. XP's bare minimum was 64 MB

---
More and more, it feels like I'm doing a really bad impersonation of myself.
#47PlatinaValkyriePosted 3/2/2014 1:37:55 PM(edited)
As Tireseas said, Windows 2000 was a workstation and server OS targeted at enterprises. It was sold to the NT crowd. The least expensive version was Windows 2000 Professional. The general consumer counterpart was Windows ME.

Windows XP ran on its minimum requirements about as well as Windows Vista did. The year 2001 internet posts about XP was like someone took the year 2007 posts about Vista and replaced all instances of "XP" with "2000" and "Vista" with "XP". XP was spared as much widespread hate because it had ME and 98 as its consumer sector predecessors.

Speaking of XP, MS merged consumer and enterprise development for XP partly to conserve development resources. I suspect porting Metro to the desktop was motivated at least in part by similar reasons.