backtop


Print 127 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Jun 29 at 10:40 AM

Change may be less extreme than some expected, but may leave some unhappy campers

You don't put desktop in the corner.

That sentiment is at the heart of much of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) faithful’s increasing frustration with Windows 8.  Loyal Windows blogger Paul Thurrott went as far as to compare it to the much loathed Windows ME ("Millennium Edition").  Others have been more charitable, praising its strong touch support.  And manufacturers seem to be on board with Microsoft's message, at least, showing of a slew of hybrid notebooks and tablets [1][2][3].

When word leaked that Microsoft had snipped out the code that allowed the Start Menu to be re-enabled on the desktop via third-party hacks, many commenters flipped out and let their rage be known.  They weren't much happier when they heard that the Aero UI theme found in Windows Vista and Windows 7 desktops would be replaced by a Metro UI alternative.  (The current publicly available Release Preview retains the Aero UI theme.)

So how bad (or good) is the new Metro desktop makeover? Judge for yourself from these screenshots from WinUnleaked.

Windows 8 Metro Desktop

Windows 8 Metro UI Windows 8 Metro Desktop Windows 8 Metro Desktop Windows 8 Metro Desktop

Windows 8 Metro Desktop
(Click any image to enlarge) [Images Source: WindowsUnleaked]

While there's no real reason to doubt the authenticity of these shots, bear in mind that the leaked OS is a pre-RTM (release to manufacturing/marketing) build.  Even the poster "canouna" warns, "Please keep in mind this is not the FINAL theme."

Some people have already (for better or worse) drawn comparisons between the Metro theme and the Windows XP Water Color theme:

XP Water Color
 [Image Source: "The Rock"/WindowsUnleaked]

Of course, the bad news is that Microsoft appears to be locking the Desktop to Metro UI, though there's faint hope that it might leave in legacy code allowing transparency to be re-enabled.  Desktop Windows Manager (DWM) is still running on the test builds, but there's no telling if it will contain the Aero code any more.  Microsoft has stated before that Aero wastes battery life and consumes extra processing power versus the cleaner Metro UI, so that may be justification in Microsoft's mind for the switch.

As far as further changes to the desktop, the top two rumors are that Microsoft may complete the Metro makeover with new Metro-styled icons.  A second rumor is that the Office-esque "Ribbon" will be added to more of the menus, as this was the case in certain early builds.

So what do you think?  Is the Metro desktop in its current form a stud or a dud?

Source: WindowsUnleaked



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Looks like...
By hiscross on 6/14/2012 11:45:05 AM , Rating: -1
Isn't all window releases a bunch of service packs for windows 95? any linix distro crushes whatever microsoft ships.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 11:39:22 AM , Rating: 5
Really?

What Linux distro has a robust enough solution to run the entire enterprise sector, and server software integration to boot, all while supporting it 100% so that IT staff can get programming solutions that need work?

Linux is nice for closet techies, Mac is good for consumer use, but neither are 10% the fully functional OS/Ecosystem that Windows is. They arent even remotely close. Your comment is so off base it's not even funny.


RE: Looks like...
By quiksilvr on 6/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... OK, call me when the accounting,shop floor, CRM, inventory, logistics, reverse logistics, supply chain software is ready for business and supported by staff at Red Hat all in a working Ecosystem. Its not even close to being close. It's not even being thought about, much less being developed.


RE: Looks like...
By vignyan on 6/14/2012 12:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Those are not the only applications.
BTW, SAP and oracle software run on linux (only, in some cases). SAP and oracle support their software - not microsoft. Why would Red-hat provide support for third party applications. :P


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know, there are many other examples, but they are only small examples that account for one small piece. My point is that MS has the entire enterprise ecosystem that the whole world runs off. Including every factory that makes every Mac and iPhone. If Linux went away and all software was deleted , a few companies would have to scramble to move over to MS. If Apple went away and all products disappeared, alot of people would have to find new toys. If MS went away and all software was gone, the entire world would grind to a halt. All I am saying is you can hate on them all you want, but no-one else has ever come close to thier accomplishments. No-one else has even come remotely close. It is such a huge accomplishment that as of today no-one else has even tried. Its just too big of a hill to climb.


RE: Looks like...
By Argon18 on 6/14/2012 5:29:25 PM , Rating: 5
No, Microsoft does not have "the entire enterprise ecosystem that the whole world runs off".

Microsoft has nothing in the Mission critical space. Every stock exchange in the world runs on Tandem NonStop architecture (now owned by HP). 70% of the power generation in the US (and 100% of the nuclear power generation in the US) also runs on Tandem NonStop. The big financial houses (like AIG, etc) all run AIX for their critical transaction processing. VISA and Mastercard also use AIX for all their processing.

And then there's Mainframe. S/390, AS/400, etc. Mainframe is still a multi $Billion dollar business for IBM, (and to a lesser extent, HP).

Microsoft owns the desktop and office apps. I'll give you that. And corporate email (Exchange). But that's really all they own, which is a pretty small slice of the global data processing pie.


RE: Looks like...
By zerocks on 6/14/2012 7:59:24 PM , Rating: 5
The worlds real situation is as follows:
If Microsoft/Windows died and became unusable, a huge percentage of the worlds industries would stop and need an alternative.
If Linux/Unix/whatever distro's died and became unusable, a huge percentage of the worlds industries would stop and need an alternative.
If Mac/OSx died and became unusable, a small percentage of the people would buy a cheaper computer and complain about it not being as pretty.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/15/2012 7:55:32 AM , Rating: 3
Try not to be so literal. I didnt say MS is everything to all and no other systems exist. I am saying its the one with the complete package a to z. Noone else has ever done that, nor have they even tried. There isnt even a close 2nd.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
No need to call. Unless you want us to call you to get some sense in your head before you make these silly posts.

None of these software will be supported by Red Hat staff. Neither will they be supported by Microsoft, unless we are specifically considering Microsoft Dynamics.

ERP software that you are talking about will be supported by the respective ERP vendors.

Please think before you post.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Please think before you post."

You arent grasping what I am talking about here. Read up some on how IT works and read the rest of this thread to gain a clue before you start insulting people.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
First I apologize. You are correct, my tone was completely uncalled for. Had a stressful day, but I should have been objective. I am sorry.

But the objective part of the post (buried under the rest of my stupid tone) remains valid.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 3
No worries. been there guilty of that myself.

I agree, its not everything in every company, but its the only A to Z solution and it is running most things in most companies. That is all I was trying to say. Linux/Unix servers have their place, in the IT world, but MS owns it.


RE: Looks like...
By Taft12 on 6/14/2012 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 4
This obviously don't apply to your employer, but the applications at mine run on Linux (some UNIX) servers for every single one of those, save accounting.

Downtime on any is measured in millions of dollars per hour. Can't afford to run any of them on Windows.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
OF course not everything at every company, but in general overall, most of the world's business runs off Windows and Windows servers. I would be pretty shocked if your company isnt running a bunch on Windows server, MS exchange etc etc as well... the end users are also likely accessing those apps from Windows workstations. If not, your company is an extreme rarity.


RE: Looks like...
By Cerin218 on 6/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Looks like...
By vignyan on 6/14/2012 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that his statement was not even remotely accurate.

But linux is used in most mission critical servers,high performance/high reliability systems. It's not the easiest or the latest, but is the most reliable. Look up any of the stable kernels, they are about 5 years old (all new releases are beta). These servers run for 4-6 years without a reboot. I personally owned a server for 3 years straight running on red hat linux. Although, what I did with that was not mission critical :).

BTW, Mac su*ks. Except for the terminal.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
A server is not an enterprise ecosystem. Its just a server.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
And what is your point? So is Microsoft windows - a server.

Most large enterprises run a variant of Unix/Linux. That is part of their enterprise ecosystem. Then they learn Oracle on top of that - which is again, part of the enterprise ecosystem.

Many organizations may also run Windows Server. Actually large organizations choose a variety of OS, and they don't (I will fire my IT Admin if he did) choose anything based on their "love" for MS or Unix/Linux. It is based on their needs, legacy software, etc. They maintain this complexity and that is why they have entire IT Admin departments that support these heterogeneous environments.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
"And what is your point? So is Microsoft windows - a server."

see my other posts above. It's thoroughly explained. It's not just about a server or set of servers. It's the software that the servers run and the software that the users use to run a company. Accounting,shop floor, CRM, inventory, logistics, reverse logistics, supply chain to name a few... All this software is ready for business and supported by staff at MS all in a working Ecosystem. No-one lese does that, no one else has ever even tried.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except they are NOT supported by the staff of MS. Unless, a company specifically decides to buy and implement Microsoft Dynamics.

If you are running SAP, the leading ERP vendor providing the software you are talking about, SAP issues will not be supported by MS Support. You need to open a ticket with SAP support.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Of Course SAP supports SAP. What of it?

My point is that when companies like SAP are developing or having an issue THEY can call MS support to get help. Its not one app, or one server, its the entire ecosystem that exists. The entire world runs off MS software. You keep putting up small examples of things, and of course they exist, but that is all tiny pieces of the big picture.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I never said MS Software is non existent in an enterprise. Quite the contrary. Most clients are running Windows desktop OS, and then there are Exchange Servers etc.

But all large corporations are also running UNIX on an enterprise level. In fact, the most popular database right now is Oracle. And the most popular choice of running Oracle is on UNIX variant, whether for warehousing or transaction.

And the software you were talking about are in an ERP system that all large corporations deploy. And part of the ERP is the database that stores the data. Both the DBs (Oracle in my example) or the App Server (SAP in my previous example), run on UNIX.

From what I have seen, the smaller companies with limited IT budget, tend to deploy an MS only environment.

So my original point - UNIX variant is very much in the enterprise ecosystem that runs all those software you are talking about.

And as I previously said, I have yet to see any large company that only runs MS. Lets not consider MS here, though at one point (if I remember correctly), they were running Linux or Unix (cant remember what) for their Website.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed... I didnt mean to imply that MS runs everything at every company, but linux/unix aren't anything close to the full package. They are reliable servers and way better than MS for large enterprises with large DB's, but it's only a part of the big picture. MS is the only one that does it all, and no-one else is even remotely close. There isnt even a distant second place, there is no-one else at all.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 3
Ok we are good then :D

One point you mentioned, or someone else did (too lazy to now check - brooding on my tea now), is that MS setup is way easier to manage. It does bring down the TCO. I have been recommending Windows R2 + MS SQL to customers myself. They have got quite reliable, and I am expecting them to catch up with UNIX level reliability in the near future.

The above comment in my circle generally starts another debate (you probably faced this as well), that a proper system admin should be knowing UNIX maintenance and a company should invest in IT, blah blah. What they don't realize is that medium sized companies do not want to invest too much in an IT department (talking only personnel here).

Plus any System Admin worth his salt, should also be able to properly maintain secure and reliable Win servers. Just that large enterprises tend to have a mixed environment. Mostly because they grow from small to large, and over time their systems become diverse.

Cheers!


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 4:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
+1 =)


RE: Looks like...
By Argon18 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like...
By Ammohunt on 6/14/2012 10:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
wow from your account Windows will cure cancer as well. The fact is that Linux is replacing Big iron Unix in datacenters more so than it is replacing/displacing Windows Servers. But that is changing; windows in the server room can easily be replaced by linux/open source solutions if users are conditioned away from Microsoft usage habits. I have used Linux for the last 4 years at work to manage Both windows and command line operating envrionemnts. The last 2 companies i worked for do the majority of the important server work on Linux not windows this trend will continue.


RE: Looks like...
By Helbore on 6/14/2012 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that's totally correct. Even Windows 7 is basically running on the same kernel as Windows 95.

Oh, hang on a minute, no it isn't. Its a completely different operating system.


RE: Looks like...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/14/2012 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, that's totally correct. Even Windows 7 is basically running on the same kernel as Windows 95. Oh, hang on a minute, no it isn't. Its a completely different operating system.


Windows 7 does have roots in the Windows NT kernel though which was released around the same era as Windows 95. :)

The Windows 95 kernel though pretty much ended with Windows ME as Windows XP was more Windows 2000-like which in turn was based on Windows NT.


RE: Looks like...
By Helbore on 6/14/2012 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I know Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel. It certainly isn't basically the same OS as Windows 95, as the person I was replying to suggested.

It's a stupid argument anyway, being as they were promoting Linux, which first came out in 1991. By their own logic, that would make any OS based off Windows 95 better than any linux distro, being that they're just a modified version of a '91 era OS - and that's not even getting into the discussion of linux being modelled on unix, which itself comes from the 60s.

All in all, it was just a useless, poorly-thought-out argument, bereft of facts and logic - commonly known as a fanboy rant.


RE: Looks like...
By zephyrprime on 6/14/2012 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 3
What an ignorant comment. Windows 2000 was a totally new code base than Windows 95/98/me. Every build of windows since then is a derivative of Win2K. And how can you complain about windows releases being only tweaks when every Linux release is only an incremental addition to a firmly entrenched code base with little refactoring?


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki