
Fixing Windows 8 (2013) - JoshGlazebrook
http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8
======
UnoriginalGuy
So he splashed some new colours onto things, added back in a new Start Menu
that is less usable than both the full screen metro one but also the old
Windows 7 one, and then made the metro interface even more convoluted? Meh.

As they say, it is very easy to criticise someone else for at least trying
something and very hard to solve it yourself. I will fully admit that I have
no better ideas for how to both keep the classic desktop but also integrate
the new touch screen "metro" elements into it.

I really do have to say that I think Apple has the "best" solution right now.
iOS for touch devices (iPad, iPhone, iPod) and OS X for desktop. Then they get
to sit back and make an absolutely wonderful user experience for both
scenarios without worrying about the potential crossover.

If I was in charge of Windows that is likely what I would do. Make Windows for
Desktop and Windows for Touch, with starkly different UIs and designs, but
with some emulation layer so people can run a touch app on the desktop (in
like a sandbox window).

Frankly Windows Desktop has a LOT of crust on it. Go look at Control Panel.
They have UIs unchanged since Windows 9x (Mouse, Keyboard, etc), then they
have UIs added in XP (Firewall), then different ones added in Vista (Action
Centre, etc), and now in 8 we have "Change PC Settings" which is another UI
concept again.

If you've ever used OS X for any amount of time, the thing is just polished
and consistent from top to bottom. I mean go compare OS X "Preferences" to
Control Panel on Windows 8, and Apple manage to get that kind of consistent
polish all over the place.

Microsoft cannot kill the Windows Desktop as much as they might wish, so for
the love of god go through from top to bottom and modernise it. Control Panel
= Gone. Folder Options = Gone. Device Manage = Gone.

~~~
cpleppert
>>If I was in charge of Windows that is likely what I would do. Make Windows
for Desktop and Windows for Touch, with starkly different UIs and designs, but
with some emulation layer so people can run a touch app on the desktop (in
like a sandbox window)

Emulation layers don't work; if your operating system needs to emulate needed
applications no one is going to use it. Microsoft already has a touch
optimized OS: Windows Phone, just port it to tablets. Easy. Done. Of course
then it has to compete with iOS and Android on its merits and not because it
has Office and can interface with the windows ecosystem and can kinda run
desktop applications.

~~~
edvinbesic
Emulation layers do indeed work, just look at the Apple IBM to Intel
transition and Rosetta for running G5 apps.

------
code_duck
Regarding

> " 1) Microsoft wants to create a coherent store experience and ecosystem for
> Windows with the Windows Store.

[...] when Apple showed the world how awesome a central managed application
store is, everyone had to do it. [...] it’s just an obvious thing that nobody
got before. [...] It doesn’t make sense anymore to scout the web through bad
website and installers that want to fill your computer with crap by default
when you can have a one button purchase/install/update/manage for your apps. "

Actually, Linux, especially Debian and Ubuntu have had that for years.
Configuring a Windows machine with the software you need used to mean going to
10 different websites, downloading zip and exe files each with their own
installer, etc and it would take forever vs. Debian or Ubuntu where you can
install most anything from apt, quickly and easily just like an App Store...
since 1999.

~~~
ksk
I don't know why you picked Linux. Its a particularly poor example. Linux,
unlike a modern OS, lacks any kind of sane dependency management. Thus, it
throws this responsibility on the repository maintainer to maintain a MxN
matrix of packages and dependencies. God help you if you add another repo with
a different set of dependencies which conflict with the existing repos.
Dependency hell is a still present problem on Linux. Anyway this is nothing
new, as users of Linux, we all know about this and the developers know it even
better.

The Apple App Store distributes _self contained_ binaries+dependencies
(excluding OS libs) which is one sane way of doing things.

~~~
rantanplan
:-O Which decade are you coming from?

Windows and Mac don't have dependency management _at all_. They just pack one
big blob with all the dependencies. Mac tries to imitate the Linux packaging
with homebrew, but it's far from it yet.

The thing about different repos with the same deps is solved with
'priorities', since its inception.

~~~
ksk
>Windows and Mac don't have dependency management at all.

Not sure why you feel so compelled to talk about OSs I didn't mention. I was
talking about the iOS App Store. In any case - apt-get, yum etc are third
party tools that just copy, extract files from some server and run some pre-
made configuration scripts. Thats _all_ they do. All the hard work of figuring
out dependencies, avoiding cycles, etc is done OUTSIDE the OS by the
repository maintainers. You can do that on ANY OS.

>The thing about different repos with the same deps is solved with
'priorities', since its inception.

Different repositories which the user ads can and do have dependency
conflicts. One package from repo-1 can require a lib with version >= 1.0 while
another package from another repo-2 will only work with version 0.9, etc. I
have often had to add add other repos to get software unavailable in current
repos. I have run in to these issues quite often. And I am not even getting
into how brittle apt-get in general is.

~~~
rantanplan
>Not sure why you feel so compelled to talk about OSs I didn't mention.

Because you said:"Linux, unlike a modern OS, lacks any kind of sane dependency
management", which is of course non-sensical, as it is the only OS with
dependency management. Also in the case of RPM the dependencies are listed
inside the package, the YUM then just does the dependency resolution and
fetches the required packages. I really don't understand what point you're
trying reach, since automatic dependency management/resolving is one of the
most important reasons Linux is chosen for server environments and
deployments.

Since I've been doing this for a living for more than 10 years, I really don't
know how you have found so many problems and issues with it. Maybe you're
using some kind of rolling-release distro?

And of course nope; you can't do that on any OS, because.... we would have
done it! That's why homebrew for Mac feels like a poor man's apt/yum system.

~~~
ksk
> I really don't understand what point you're trying reach, since automatic
> dependency management/resolving is one of the most important reasons Linux
> is chosen for server environments and deployments.

>Since I've been doing this for a living for more than 10 years, I really
don't know how you have found so many problems and issues with it. Maybe
you're using some kind of rolling-release distro?

For average desktop users things like third party repos, PPAs, etc induce
failure modes in apt-get that are quite common. One of the most common ways
that users get screwed is by adding too many third party repositories or
steping outside the repository and build/install via source or installing an
rpm/deb file manually. The main reason is the OS does not handle dependencies,
only the package manager does. So if you step outside the package manager..
you can get burnt fairly easily doing benign things. A few examples I found in
under a minute...

[http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/43952/](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/43952/)
[http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5505/](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5505/)
[http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/59930/](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/59930/)
[http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/96282](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/96282)
[http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8963/](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8963/)

>because.... we would have done it! That's why homebrew for Mac feels like a
poor man's apt/yum system.

That's rather poor reasoning. There are several factors why one would not want
to maintain a giant repository of packages and associated dependencies. For
one, atleast on newer OSX installs the presence of the Mac App Store negates
any large scale interest in such a project.

Also the fact that tech like macports, chocolatey, nuget, etc exist,
demonstrates the proof of concept. Also I'd like to stick my neck out a bit
for MS tech like AppV which is the underlying tech for MS Office 2013 IIRC
which allows centralized deployment for enterprises. Its better than apt-get
IMHO.

Across platforms I'd say Steam is a much more better platform than apt-get/yum
etc for digital distribution of software. On Windows - the only dependencies
would be third party libs like PhysX, OpenAL, etc. Windows, since XP, has a
great OS-level dependency solution (unlike apt-get and the rest - which the
Linux kernel/executable loader/etc do not know about explicitly) for
installing multiple versions of libraries side by side and having the
developer specify things like - whether they want the latest version or
whether they want a specific version, etc via simple application manifests.

~~~
rantanplan
Look, no offence, but by the look of the links you gave, you have no leg to
stand on and you seem to conflate package management and resolution with
software distribution platforms(which has more to do with marketing than
technology).

All the links you provided have one of the following traits: 1) User decided
to build from source - That's outside the package management and FYI "make &&
make install" on Linux is _exactly_ the same on Mac.

2) User decided to include _Testing_ repositories on Debian which, since you
don't know, it's like having a different Debian distro.

3) User decided to install broken proprietary software(in that case Oracle)
that for arbitrary reasons forced the user to install x86 packages while the
user's system is 64-bit.

In any case, you don't install Debian if you want bleeding edge packages -
wrong tool for the job. Choose Fedora, Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.

If you work in the CS industry and you say that no one wants something like
Linux package management, well you simply... don't work in the industry.

AppStore, Steam and whatnot have _absolutely_ nothing to do with package
management and dep resolution. Also try something, make a script or program
that installs and deploys automatically a development environment with either
of the aforementioned technologies. Oh you can't? Yeah that's because you
conflate technology issues with marketing issues.

~~~
ksk
>1) User decided to build from source - That's outside the package management
and FYI "make && make install" on Linux is exactly the same on Mac.

So Linux as an OS does not do dependency management - you have to stay within
a third party tool/package manager. Thanks for proving my point.

2) User decided to include Testing repositories on Debian which, since you
don't know, it's like having a different Debian distro.

Adding more repos leads to breakage - Exactly what I said. You are adding
nothing new.

3) User decided to install broken proprietary software(in that case Oracle)
that for arbitrary reasons forced the user to install x86 packages while the
user's system is 64-bit.

It would have made no difference if it wasn't proprietary. Also I have seen
such breaks multiple times with F/OSS software.

>If you work in the CS industry and you say that no one wants something like
Linux package management, well you simply... don't work in the industry.

Stop putting words in other peoples mouths. Thats dishonest.

>AppStore, Steam and whatnot have absolutely nothing to do with package
management and dep resolution.

Good job replying to something I never said. My mention of Steam and the App
store was specifically for digital distribution. Heck .. I even said so
myself...

Let me quote myself.. (rather sad that I have to do this)

"The Apple App Store distributes _self contained_ __binaries+dependencies
__(excluding OS libs) which is one sane way of doing things. "

"Across platforms I'd say Steam is a much more better platform than apt-
get/yum etc for __digital distribution __of software. "

This is my last reply. Goodbye.

~~~
mst
> So Linux as an OS does not do dependency management - you have to stay
> within a third party tool/package manager. Thanks for proving my point.

Debian is an OS. Linux is a kernel. Within a debian (or ubuntu) install,
dpkg/apt-get are a first party tool, supplied as part of the operating system.

So debian, as an OS, _does_ do dependency management. I'd include a mirror
"thanks for proving" comment here but I don't want to lower myself to your
level of supercilious condescension.

The multiple upstream repository problems you describe are very real, though -
the nix approach avoids a lot of the upgrade-related problems but still relies
on a curated channel of compatible versions, although given the capacity to
have multiple versions of things installed relying on multiple such channels
will be safe for the user, and the disadvantages at that point largely accrue
to the effort required of the curator.

~~~
ksk
I don't consider the package manager tool-set to be part of the OS. Certainly
it is part of a distribution much like other tools are. There is some amount
of pedanticness involved when it comes to differentiating the common use of
Linux as an OS, Linux as a kernel, Linux distributions, etc. I was using
"Linux OS" as a catch all for the kernel + whatever to make it boot to a
console.

FYI condescension is reserved for intentionally dishonest replies - which I
did detect earlier from the other poster.

~~~
mst
I think the 'distribution' concept mostly exists because Linux is just a
kernel - I consider the whole thing the OS, especially given apt-get is how I
mostly get my kernels.

To my mind, Slackware is an OS that chooses not to ship something of the order
of apt-get, rather than separating 'OS' from 'distribution'.

But given you're (by default) booting Debian's choice of Linux kernel, and
Debian's choice of userland, all tied together by the dependency resolution of
Debian's shipped package manager, which is what provided you with said kernel
... I still think calling it a third-party tool is silly.

Or at least, I see Debian as the first-party rather than Linux here, and I
think the fact that your way of looking at it is ... well, "not how I commonly
see things regarded" ... the problem wasn't so much dishonesty as a complete
failure to realise you were using a different communication protocol.

Never attribute to dishonesty that which can be adequately explained by
terminology mismatches :)

------
dec0dedab0de
_Linux is a usability nightmare the second you get out of the fake easy-to-use
illusion layer they added with the new GUIs. Unless you’re a coder, don’t even
think about it._

Do you think he really believes this? Maybe I'm too far in a bubble or
something, but that sounds completely dishonest.

~~~
copx
I do not just believe it, I know it. When something does not work in Linuxland
the answer is still "open the terminal, enter a bunch of cryptic commands"
and/or manually edit text-based config files. I can do that easily, I grew up
with DOS. We had to tweak the parameters of the memory manager and make custom
boot disks with just the right set of drivers to get games working as kids. It
is just that I am not willing to do that stuff anymore. This is the 21st
century and my time has value.

Recent examples of my Linux "user experience":

\- (Fedora) Internet went down while the package manager (OMG I hate those!)
was busy updating the system. This left the package manager in a corrupted
state. I could no longer use the GUI to install/update anything, only gave me
a "please fix me somehow" type error message. I could easily google the
solution. Four cryptic terminal commands later it was good to go again. But as
I said: unacceptable for a modern desktop OS.

\- (Ubuntu) Getting my wifi to work. Do I even have to start? I ended up
having to download a kernel module .tarball from somewhere, had to integrate
that into the kernel, and edit some config files by hand. Again, no problem,
Google is magic. However it wasted one hour of my life: unacceptable. On
Windows getting the wifi to work required.. clicking on setup.exe.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
The Linux community doesn't help either. Some of them want to be inclusive,
but the majority of the community think that Linux should be an exclusive club
where only those with a high level of knowledge should get treated with any
kind of respect or help. Just go Google any Linux topic, and I assure you the
first page will contain several forum post where the only response is "RTFM,"
"if you cannot figure this out you shouldn't be touching it (audio issues)"
(paraphrasing), or even "maybe you'd be better off using Windows teehee."

I think Ubuntu has done much to make Linux more consumer friendly and I
congratulate them for that. But realistically Android or Chrome OS
(Chromebook, etc) are the only two Linux OSs I'd likely use on a daily basis
because in both cases they abstract you away from the ugly Linux innards
better than any standard distro' is able to do.

The fact that Linux depends so heavily on the terminal/console is just
pathetic. It reminds me of Windows 9x. Which is kind of depressing when you
consider that the Linux kernel is the most advanced kernel currently in
existence, but they get weighed down by the UNIX legacy stuff, users, and GNU
side of things.

That's why Android is so wonderful. Instead of it being Linux/GNU, it is
Linux/Android. When we get a full desktop OS without the GNU gunk and the
associated bad-attitude ("terminal is the bestest, I am so 1337!!!") I'd
happily switch to it. Hell I'd switch to a Linux/Android OS if Google and
friends made one for the PC desktop (with real windows/multi-tasking).

OS X is also a great UNIX OS because there is no terminal fallback. You can do
90%+ of things you'd ever need to do on OS X via UIs and tools. Plus the
community on OS X is better than the toxic Linux community, even if they're a
little defensive when people criticize Apple/OS X.

~~~
adamnemecek
> ...Linux kernel is the most advanced kernel currently in existence,...

I'm not sure what this even means.

~~~
mst
I'm fairly sure it doesn't.

------
ljoshua
The biggest improvement here is subtle, yet important. He made the desktop
experience separate from the touch experience, and the touch experience
separate from the desktop. Similar to what one would think of with Ubuntu on
the desktop versus the touch version that would go on phones. Not providing
the unoptimized experience would go a long way.

And the comment on Windows RT being renamed Windows Lite... good idea.

------
greenwalls
He says "Apple showed the world how awesome a central managed application
store is". As a developer I feel like the worst thing about iOS and Android
are their app stores. Could Bitcoin, Bittorrent, Napster, Chatroulette, or any
new and fun applications or websites exist if they were forced to appear in an
app store? No way! Do we want some giant company deciding what new technology
developers can come up with in the future? I hope we don't do that to
ourselves. App stores are garbage.

~~~
roryokane
I think he was advocating _optional_ app stores, not a sole-provider app store
like on iOS. Even though OS X and Android have app stores, they also let you
install any “unapproved” apps you want and open whatever web apps you want,
after changing a one-time setting. The proposed Windows 8.2 would probably be
the same.

As long as app stores remain optional, I think they are a good thing. It is a
lot simpler for users to browse one place for apps and install all apps in the
same simple way. An app store is a reassuringly simple way to install software
for those who aren’t very confident with modifying their computers.

~~~
scholia
There already is a good app store for Windows, and has been for a couple of
years:

[http://allmyapps.com/](http://allmyapps.com/)

You can download apps directly without using the installer, but the installer
will update apps for you as well.

There's also Ninite, of course, but AllMyApps has over 16,000 apps.

------
windsurfer
This entirely misses one key part of how Windows has evolved: Microsoft is a
collection of many competing individuals, not a single entity with unified
goals.

Windows development is shaped by a small team of developers and designers
being influenced by a large battery of project managers and stakeholders.
Their business is compromise, not uniformity or singular vision.

For instance, Windows has to support both touch and keyboard/mouse because of
the tablet PC group desiring equal marketing and development focus so as to
not devalue the tablet brand and ecosystem. Windows doesn't have a coherent
design language because it doesn't help everyone or any group particularly
well. The Windows 8.1 upgrade had store login required because the app store
was lacking traction.

While Jay's UI ideas have great intentions, they're not solving any of the
immediate problems Microsoft's groups have.

------
sdegutis
Just some meta-commentary:

The first section seems like it's mostly just him repeating himself quite a
lot without really saying anything new at all. Very difficult to get through
it.

He also warns his readers: "Yes there will be a lot of spelling mistakes,
unfortunately you will have to leave with it. The goal was to put out the
information of my research, not to write a perfectly checked novel."

That's like giving the recycling plant a bag mixed with recyclables and rotten
garbage, and saying "you sort it out, it's your problem now" when it really
isn't their job.

So it's hard to take this article seriously. Someone who takes his own idea
seriously wouldn't settle for presenting it so poorly. I'm disappoint.

~~~
sdegutis
Regarding his actual idea:

Years ago, I was drawn by Apple's attention to detail, UI, and UX, so I
migrated from Windows to Mac OS X. Last week, I was drawn by Microsoft's
attention to detail, UI, and UX, and have already started migrating from OS X
10.9 to Windows 8.1. (I'm typing this in IE11 right now on my rMBP actually,
and I think I prefer it to Chrome.) The ideas and presentations in his article
don't settle well with me. They feel like a huge step backwards in usability
and design. I admit Windows 8.1 isn't perfect, but I don't think his changes
fix any real problems that I have with it, and they certainly create some new
ones.

That said, I am excited to see how MS is going to make the desktop environment
more unified and consistent in the future, which I'm sure they're working on.

~~~
n1ghtmare_
I couldn't have said it better. I think Win 8.1 is quite nice actually, I know
it's cool to hate on it, but frankly speaking it's pretty good (IMHO of
course).

I really don't get all the fuzz on the start menu, honestly, I'm never in it
even on Windows 7, I press "win key"-> search -> run, and guess what I do
exactly the same in Windows 8, except now the start menu is a bit more useful,
I mean sure I don't use all the metro app (some I do for example news), but
the rest acts a very nice shortcut "wall", and it helps keep my desktop is
pristine. Even if Microsoft decides to ditch the whole Metro concept I hope
they keep the "Start" the same as it is. I know I'm perhaps in the minority
here but, the previous start menu was completely useless to me, honestly.

------
shadowmint
Quick link to the designs:
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4855031/Windows%208.2%20...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4855031/Windows%208.2%20Prototype%20by%20Jay%20Machalani.zip)

Particularly the redesigned start menus and stuff about the charms bar are
spot on, that really made me sit up and pay attention.

------
diego_moita
It is a lot simpler:

1) Install the 8.1 update and disable the Metro screen.

2) Install classic shell:
[http://classicshell.net/](http://classicshell.net/).

Done, Windows 8 is fixed.

------
taylorlapeyre
Brilliant work all around. I hope Microsoft sees this talent and picks this
guy up like they did with Andrew Kim.

------
ZanyProgrammer
I've often thought about getting a Windows 8 tablet (probably a Surface 2) and
I'll admit there are some pretty good things about the Surface-being able to
snap two apps side by side is a big plus over iOS and Android, and (horror of
horrors) being able to run Flash in IE 11 is a plus. Not to mention the
kickstand, and not having to prop my iPad up against a bookcase. I guess I
think that Windows 8 is a pretty good choice for tablets-maybe its just me,
who doesn't use a lot of apps, but I don't think there's a lot missing on the
tablet side. Or take the Surface Pro 2-you have Metro IE 11 which runs ABP,
which is in and of itself a bazillion times better than mobile Safari.

But yes, its a royal clusterfuck on the desktop, and I don't want Windows 8,
much less a touch screen laptop that I"ll have to keep wiping down to keep
fingerprints off of.

------
martin-adams
I really like the ideas that Jay put forward.

My opinion is that he's fixing the tablet experience for power windows users.
I want my desktop because I know it works to get my task one; but I also want
a tablet experience - in a single, unified device. I believe Microsoft need
this as they will only lose a battle from negative reviews if they keep
ignoring a very vocal user base, and they'll lose market share if they can't
improve over iOS and Android.

"Metro" apps on the desktop suck at the moment in my opinion. That doesn't
mean they should be thrown out, they should be fixed.

------
contextfree
Kudos to Jay Machalani for a great demonstration of the concept, but I have a
couple of big problems with it, or in general any design that splits the
current unified tablet/PC design we see in Windows 8 into two strictly
separated modes (of course, having two totally separate SKUs or OSs can be
thought of as an even more extreme version of this):

1\. It breaks useful cross-mode windowing scenarios.

Having a strict modal separation between the two windowing models breaks a
bunch of IMO not terribly uncommon scenarios where mixing them in some way is
useful.

* Can't have a different mode on each monitor - if one is touch/a tablet and the other isn't, for example.

* Can't snap an app beside the desktop and have the system automatically manage the use of the remaining space. There are actually some desktop apps that have hacked a custom implementation of this - OneNote for example - so I don't think it's a contrived scenario.

* Sometimes I like to use the availability of desktop and immersive windows to express a "work versus play" (or, more precisely, "continuing part of ongoing persistent task versus transient digression") distinction. That way I can use the "transient/play" apps without worrying about them cluttering the taskbar, slowing down the PC, interfering with what I'm doing, etc. Modal separation breaks that.

* Some apps just work better with one or the other windowing model - e.g., part of what I really like about Tweetium is how clicking on a link will automatically shrink the Tweetium window down to a narrow strip and open a browser window in the remaining space. That of course depends on the immersive windowing APIs. Other apps such as calculators or "sticky notes" work better in desktop windows. So it would be nice to have apps like this automatically open in the right kind of window, or at least allow the user to set this per-app, rather than requiring an obnoxious global mode switch that potentially messes with everything else.

2\. Desktop apps inherently clash with the immersive app model and UX.

While running immersive apps in desktop windows seems like it could probably
work well, I'm really leery of the reverse. There are a few potential problems
with running desktop apps in immersive windows that I see:

* Desktop apps can open multiple windows and draw outside of their window. Some apps (ab)use this quite a bit for dialogs, palette windows, etc. This could get pretty awkward to map to immersive windowing - do we put each in its own "strip"? Do we make each "strip" a little virtual desktop where the app can put additional windows? Do we try some mix of the two approaches, and if so, how does the OS decide which is which?

* A goal of the immersive app model was that the user wouldn't have to worry about closing apps or which apps were/weren't running - indeed that the concept of "running apps" wouldn't exist for most users. The system UI was designed around that - no "X" to close, no taskbar to show what's open. But desktop apps can do anything in the background, so closing them and knowing what's running is important. And when you switch modes back into the desktop, which apps should even be kept open? Since "metro" mode blurs the lines between running and suspended apps, it's not clear.

And if you can't run desktop apps in immersive windows, and in general have a
1:1 mapping of running system/app state between modes, you can't really have a
pure modal separation - either the mode switch is made destructive and
essentially becomes a reboot, or you're left with a bunch of hidden stuff
"running in the other mode" which doesn't make any sense. Once you really
start thinking through the ramifications of alternative models the current
desktop-as-an-app model starts to seem pretty elegant in some ways IMO.

~~~
TechnoFou
Great points you're bringing! To be honest I'm always up for more options. Why
not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I think
that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas.

As for the different modes per screen, why not? It would be nice to have a
clean shortcut to say switch environment, but just for the active screen.
Basically it would transfer the apps on that current screen from Desktop mode
to Metro mode, so it is a workable solution.

As for the app imersion problem, that one is tricky since... well Metro apps
are not specifically designed for a mouse and keyboard, it works, but it's not
the best. So is the Metro environment. So my point of view is you're using an
app not optimized for mouse and keyboards in an environment not optimized for
mouse and keyboard... so by bringing Metro apps to a window environment,
you're slashing half the problem.

The core idea is you have all your apps, files and stuff on your computer, now
how do you want to interact with them. It may not be the most gracious idea,
but it's better than trying to get the charms bar with your mouse or being
stuck trying to resize windows with a touchscreen on the Desktop.

~~~
babby
>Why not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I
think that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas.

Don't be an apologist. This is Microsoft. They have the resources out their
ass to commit to this and it still wouldn't even come close to registering the
tiniest blip in their budgets.

MS needs to _git good_ and do what the post suggests, in that they need to
seperate touch and desktop interfaces for Win9, or else Windows is dead to me
and many power users alike.

------
pbhjpbhj
I like how he used the Ubuntu logo for "sharing" ...

TBH it didn't look especially revolutionary - offer users the paradigm they
want, appropriate to their hardware.

The desktop version just looks like a candy skinned version of KDE to me.

~~~
gyufgyfigyugy
Microsoft actually employs a very Ubuntu-esque icon as their sharing symbol,
baked into Windows 8. This guy isn't responsible for it, didn't try to invent
anything, re-invent it, or borrow it, or co-opt it.

That's the very icon that Microsoft actually uses within current versions of
Windows.

------
sbierwagen

      Yes there will be a lot of spelling mistakes, unfortunately 
      you will have to leave with it. The goal was to put out the 
      information of my research, not to write a perfectly 
      checked novel.
    

Eyeroll.

~~~
mwfunk
Seriously, it's such a minimal effort to do a spellcheck. Probably less effort
than was taken to write that paragraph.

~~~
TechnoFou
Not when my first language is French.

------
alok-g
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021429)

~~~
rlu
He posts comments there about meeting with MS. Anyone know if he ended up
getting a job?

~~~
TechnoFou
You can check the last blog post on my site, I talked about my visit to
Redmond!

------
dippyskoodlez
How does this handle multi-monitor environments? My workstations have either
4, 5, or 6+ screens at a time.

------
TechnoFou
Ahhhhhh I was wondering why the sudden traffic! Finally found it after
tracking a Twitter referring link with a lot of traffic, to a YC Twitter
account mentioning I was in the major news! Thanks all of you!

------
cpursley
Despite the linux comment in the authors post, but can someone please please
please take some variation of "desktop" part of this design and turn it into a
linux mint theme?

------
ronreiter
Microsoft, hire this guy and pay him a lot of money!

~~~
dxfdfd
Nothing unique here. Like the images but experience is still very much the
same. Hire someone from Apple instead!

------
onedev
Hire the fuck out of this guy, and pay him at least 1.5x normal.

He is thinking in the right direction and Microsoft, you need thinking like
this.

------
CompleteMoron2
I took a look at this. Excellent work on his part!

I still use windows and Metro is just forced full screen apps that dont even
work with the desktop classic . One thing apple got right was not to mixed iOs
with MacOS (or whatever it is you guys call it) - Microsoft once again tried
to stuff the kitchen sink into one OS.

I'd actually like to - corny as it sounds - literally just have a smart widows
logo floating around. It pops up when I hit the windows button on the
keyboard, and it always finds an empty blank spot on the desktop to appear in
to be ready.

When i click on it this floting windows logo has literally four flyouts from
it that contain a way to access apps, documents, email, and yuch - social
feeds. (maybe its configurable so its for settings) - might work well for
touch screens too.

Of course these flyouts would be configurable to be a palette of your choice.

Of course I'm not a designer and have terrible ideas - so into the ether with
this rant and Prepare for downvote!

------
01Michael10
Use Windows 8 if like it on your phone or tablet. PC? Install Windows 7 or
Linux. Fixed...

