Windows 8 is for tablets

You can see some screenshots here.

It can't be explained any other way than Microsoft feeling left behind in the tablet and mobile market. Instead of keeping two separate operating systems, they instead merge to create a broken one. Their new ui will be web interface based, no doubt heavily reliant on Microsoft-specific software in an effort to gain back some control of the web.

Looks to me like Windows 7 is the new official XP.

It looks more or less like an extended version of the Windows Phone UI. I imagine they are going to try to leverage cross compatibility between the tablet and PC as a selling point of their tablets. I honestly can't think of a single other compelling reason to get people to buy a Windows Tablet vs what's already out there.

I've heard good things about its ease of use from someone at my University.

I'll give it a go. I upgraded to Windows 7 64bit from XP 32bit because of the 32bit RAM limitation (wanted to see if 4gb helped with Gothic3's stuttering - it didn't), and to a lesser degree because of DirectX10. But I've been impressed with Win7's clean interface and ease of use. I don't use the start menu at all anymore for example, I use that snazzy search function instead.

So maybe Microsoft know what they're doing…?

I'm pretty sure I'd prefer a separate OS tailored to the strengths of the PC. I have no idea why they think this "unification" is such a good idea, as much of what you do on your PC is completely different from what you do on a Tablet.

Until they manage to create a comparable alternative to a real keyboard for real work - there's no way in hell these "touch-based" interfaces will completely take over.

It's just the shell. The core would be much the same. Apple is doing it, too. Relax.

Originally Posted by Thaurin
It's just the shell. The core would be much the same. Apple is doing it, too. Relax.

Calm down

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Calm down

NO I WILL NOT CALM DOWN GOSH DARN IT ALL TO HECK!

(…apparently, Microsoft gave off the impression that it will be the default interface, with the option to switch to the traditional desktop. That would be… interesting…)

When I am on the 27" with a high-dpi mouse in hand and 6 terrabyte harddrives to toy around with, I would most definitely like the good old desktop that was made to perfection in Windows 7. But it doesn't really work well with my tablet when I hold it in my hand. A primary issue is that your fingers are too thick for the windows interface, so closing, resizing and moving around desktop windows is a bit of a hassle. Even selecting the right file from a list in explorer is a bit difficult.

Originally Posted by Thaurin
NO I WILL NOT CALM DOWN GOSH DARN IT ALL TO HECK!

(…apparently, Microsoft gave off the impression that it will be the default interface, with the option to switch to the traditional desktop. That would be… interesting…)

*exploding rage*

Ahem… Now that's out of the way:

My point is that I think it's a bit silly to try and combine two such different platforms. They've already tried it with "Games for Windows" and other stuff.

I understand the "craving" for streamlining and unifying stuff - but sometimes you have to stop and think about it a bit, before doing what would otherwise seem the obvious route. I'm not seeing that with Windows 8.

In my view, it would be smarter to have two entirely distinct operating systems - with two entirely separate teams working on them.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see Tablets replacing PCs any time soon. They can, and in a way they already have, replace SOME of the functionality like web surfing, reading e-mails, or playing casual games. But for "serious" work like coding, photoshopping, 3D rendering, word processing, etc. - they're nowhere near the stage they'd need to be. The same is true for meaty games, obviously.

This "touch-screen" approach is great for certain things, and absolutely horrible for other things. There's no way around it - no matter how many people are running around with their Smartphones and Tablets.

Yes, you can "plug in a keyboard" or "hook it up to a screen" - but then the entire point is lost, and that's just a silly reverse approach to a simple problem.

Originally Posted by hishadow
It can't be explained any other way than Microsoft feeling left behind in the tablet and mobile market.

Wasn't it a similar situation when they introduced Windows 98 and tried to catch up with the internet hype ?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Wasn't it a similar situation when they introduced Windows 98 and tried to catch up with the internet hype ?

I've forgotten most of Windows 98 but looking at the wikipedia article the most notable things were Internet Explorer 4 and Outlook Express, but those are just applications. The web-integration stuff like Active Desktop is pretty much forgotten.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In my view, it would be smarter to have two entirely distinct operating systems - with two entirely separate teams working on them.

You know that there's more to an OS than just the interface? In fact, technically, the shell isn't part of the OS. It makes sense to run much the same OS on desktops and tablets, I think, with the power of mobile platforms these days. Most of the things you need to do on both platforms are the same. Just the interface needs to be different.

Whether they should market it as two separate products, I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things, so I don't make stupid remarks about it.

I like when people reply in comments sections about some decision by a multi-billion company as if they are themselves an entire team of well-paid marketing or product directors.

I've always skipped a generation of Windows OS. Starting with Win 95, skipped 98, used ME, skipped NT, used XP, skipped Vista, used Windows 7, will most probably skip Windows 8

Originally Posted by Thaurin
You know that there's more to an OS than just the interface?

You're kidding!

I'm so glad you're here to educate me about all these things

In fact, technically, the shell isn't part of the OS. It makes sense to run much the same OS on desktops and tablets, I think, with the power of mobile platforms these days. Most of the things you need to do on both platforms are the same. Just the interface needs to be different.

That's what I'm saying I don't think makes sense. Two very different platforms with very different physical means to interact with them should not have a visual interface based on just the one physical means of interaction. At least, I'm not seeing a good reason for that.

It doesn't matter if it's just a "shell" you can disable, as they're clearly focusing on that shell as the "next step" for PCs.

I could be wrong, though, and time will tell - won't it. Obviously, Microsoft only make correct decisions in your mind - and clearly you think all their past OSs were great.

I'm not quite so submissive as you, and I like to believe I can have an opinion that conflicts with that of MS without being entirely wrong.

Arrogant in the extreme, I know

Whether they should market it as two separate products, I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things, so I don't make stupid remarks about it.

You seem to be quite adept at not contributing anything whilst trying to educate from a position of ignorance, though!

I like when people reply in comments sections about some decision by a multi-billion company as if they are themselves an entire team of well-paid marketing or product directors.

It's a lovable trait to articulate an honest opinion, I agree.

Naturally, it's not nearly as attractive as when sheep speak based on the belief that companies are infallible because they generate a lot of profit.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You're kidding!

No, I'm not!

That's what I'm saying I don't think makes sense. Two very different platforms with very different physical means to interact with them should not have a visual interface based on just the one physical means of interaction. At least, I'm not seeing a good reason for that.

You're not seeing what I'm posting. The core OS should be the same for both platforms. It's just the interface that should be different. I don't think it is a bad decision per se to include touch screen interfaces in the main distribution. To make it default op desktop systems is, however, unusual.

Originally Posted by Thaurin
You're not seeing what I'm posting. The core OS should be the same for both platforms. It's just the interface that should be different. I don't think it is a bad decision per se to include touch screen interfaces in the main distribution. To make it default op desktop systems is, however, unusual.

I'm not talking about the "core OS" - but the huge focus on the "new and shiny" visual interface.

You seem to agree with me in some ways.

Are you sure you're not here commenting just to poke at me a bit?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm not talking about the "core OS" - but the huge focus on the "new and shiny" visual interface.

You seem to agree with me in some ways.

I highly doubt that Metro will really be the default interface in Windows 8. It simply does not make a whole lot of sense. Well, I say that without ever having used it, of course. But it does seem tailored to touch screens.

Are you sure you're not here commenting just to poke at me a bit?

I'm sure all this Metro stuff is just Microsoft's way to focus on making the most money and the industry is turning away from hardcore OS interfaces. I miss the time where you had to draw your own filesystem on mapping paper. Besides, graphics are not important. I really hope they put some C&C in Windows 8.

It doesn't matter if it's the default interface or not. I don't think you really understand my point, and I'm afraid I don't think the subject is interesting enough to repeat such a simple statement over and over.

I'll leave you to not making stupid remarks about it some more.

I think it does. As does Apple.