• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Xanather

Goodbye Start button?

63 posts in this topic

a) it can fit many more default programs/shortcuts

I can actually fit more of them shortcuts on the desktop itself, the start menu adds to organizing other programs that you don't want showing as a "desktop shortcut".

b) it can display more search results

Most of the time I only need to type in a few letters and the program I want is there, I don't think more search results is a benefit really... at the same time the whole screen hasn't been covered up.

c) it will allow you to allot desktop space to "start menu" space by simply defining where your shortcuts lie

I don't understand why its so good to get off desktop shortcut icons.

When I want something I just type it instead of seraching the start button tree. I find it more convient smile.png

You can actually do this with windows 7, i do it all the time, also in the exact same way. Press the win key and start typing :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My whole issue with Win8 for Desktops is this: Why would I use it instead of Win7? It just seems that Win8 came out 3 to 5 years earlier than it should. I can see why you'd want it for a tablet or even a phone. But for the desktop, it's a meh.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole issue with Win8 for Desktops is this: Why would I use it instead of Win7? It just seems that Win8 came out 3 to 5 years earlier than it should. I can see why you'd want it for a tablet or even a phone. But for the desktop, it's a meh.

 

Sounds like all you know about Windows 8 is the start menu / metro application FUD. How about:

 

But please, lets keep pretending like all they did was remove the start button.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that they didn't improve things. But my life with Win7 is not horrible and in need of repair. It does all the things I want and need it to do and it does it well. And quite frankly if your OS needs two interfaces, then you're doing something wrong. Regardless of how many improvements you have.

And when did I mention anything about Start Menu? That's your hangup, not mine.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a desktop user perspective,there is no reason to change to 8 at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a desktop user perspective,there is no reason to change to 8 at all.

 

Your whole post reads like "I don't need it so therefore nobody needs it", you know...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that they didn't improve things. But my life with Win7 is not horrible and in need of repair. It does all the things I want and need it to do and it does it well. And quite frankly if your OS needs two interfaces, then you're doing something wrong. Regardless of how many improvements you have.

And when did I mention anything about Start Menu? That's your hangup, not mine.

It definitely doesn't need two interfaces. I almost never see a metro app on my laptop and on the tablet it's metro almost exclusively. Both exist, but it's up to you if / when you use them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound stubborn, but I think I'm going to stay with Win7 for as long as a possibly can until new games and applications clease to function unless Microsoft makes non-awkward desktop OS before that happens.

They seem to have a policy of alternating between making an annoying OS and a follow-up more stable version of it, so I'm down with this plan. According to the pattern, Win9 has to be decent laugh.png

95 -> 98 -> Me -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 ...

What about Win2k?  I liked it.

 

Shogun.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However the good part is: Microsoft is planning to make an os for all devices,that means to put an  end to having a different win version for tablets/pcs/phones.They already managed to do it for tablets and pcs,phones are next.I like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Win2k?  I liked it.

That's a different branch of the family tree wink.png

...NT4 -> 2k...

 

Technically, 2k is actually more of a real predecessor of XP than ME is. The 98/Me branch and the NT/2k branch had serious compatability issues with each other. 2k made a lot of progress in becoming compatable with the 98/ME branch, and then win XP finished the job. XP is actually a continuation of the NT branch... but if I drew my timeline that way, then my pattern wouldn't work tongue.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, yeah, you're right.  I forgot about NT4, etc.

 

The only version of Windows I hated was Vista.  It took a fair bit of fighting, but I got ME to work without issues before.  Still more trouble than it was worth.

 

Shogun.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What about Win2k?  I liked it.

That's a different branch of the family tree wink.png
...NT4 -> 2k...
 
Technically, 2k is actually more of a real predecessor of XP than ME is. The 98/Me branch and the NT/2k branch had serious compatability issues with each other. 2k made a lot of progress in becoming compatable with the 98/ME branch, and then win XP finished the job. XP is actually a continuation of the NT branch... but if I drew my timeline that way, then my pattern wouldn't work tongue.png


I don't think the pattern really works in any case, despite its constant parroting - 95 was decent but 98 was awful (98SE made it somewhat usable) and XP wasn't much good until it had a couple of service packs under its belt. Vista was fine as long as your hardware manufacturers had sorted their drivers out, which they had by the time 7 came out which is probably 7 has a better reputation than Vista despite it removing or breaking a lot of good features. Sadly those have been continued into Windows 8, but at least Windows 8 adds a lot of other good stuff to help you forget (and you can install 3rd party software like 7+ Taskbar Tweaker to fix some of the more annoying changes).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me more than the missing start button or ugly UI is the DRM-BIOS that gets pushed onto people. If you buy a computer it should be your choice whats running on it and not of some company holding the key.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Windows "blue" basically Service Pack 1?

I heard somewhere that windows 9/blue wont have the start button either. I personally see this as a disappointment, the start screen is designed for touch screens not desktops.

No it is not! smile.png

Seriously, I don't understand this. MS change the start menu in every version of Windows. There are advantages and disadvantages to each version - personally I hated XP's one the most, and like Windows 8's the best. (And on that note, I find it curious that people seem to compare the classic "tree" version to Windows 8, ignoring that we haven't had that version since Windows Me/2000.)

Fair enough if people prefer the older version, but what is it that makes it "designed for touch screens"?

That it takes up the full screen? Well personally I'd rather that the full use of my 17" be used, rather than a menu that only takes up a postage-stamp size. Also remember that the "classic" Win 9x/2000 menu *was* designed to take up the full screen, as you opened up all the sub-menus. But from XP onwards, we were left with this thing that only used a small amount of space.

The start menu is now launched by a hotspot rather than a button, which is a method that won't even work with touch. Surely "designed for touchscreen" would mean making the button bigger, not smaller? I don't even know how this works on touchscreens, possibly some kind of swipe gesture(?), but that's not how it's done with a mouse.

Some things on the start menu are now done with a right mouse click - how is that possible on a touchscreen?

Yes, they took away the graphical button and did it via a hotspot, but personally I think it's good that MS have finally made use of Fitts's Law.

Still, if you don't like it, there are lots of free utilities to change it back to Windows 7 style. Or Windows XP, or Windows 9x classic style, whichever you like best. I think this would be a poor reason to stay away, and miss out of the benefits (and yes, there are improvements that have nothing to do with touchscreens).

Yeah I hated it at first when 7/vista redesigned the start menu... but now the only way I use it is by typing in that search box.

Me too - and again, the fact that it works so well with keyboards makes the "only for touchscreens" complaint rather odd. Though I think Windows 8 now makes other ways more accessible:

* I like that the start screen can now be customised with your common applications, so clicking on those is much easier. Really this is what the people commonly did with the desktop (and again, nothing to do with touchscreens), but it's done much better. Creating and deleting shortcuts was a pain, but now it's easy to "pin" anything to the start screen. It can also scroll for more space, and it means the desktop can remain uncluttered. (True, one could fit more icons on the desktop at once, but if people would rather clutter up their desktop, they can still do that anyway.)

* And if you end up having to scroll through the list of applications, I'd say icons plus text, with a fullscreen, is better than scrolling through a small window of only text.

That's a 35 year step backwards in user interface, though.

"Windows 8 is horrible, it only works with these new touchscreen devices, not my keyboard"
"But you can launch things quickly with a keyboard"
"I don't want to use an old fashioned keyboard method!"
...

To you, and others criticising: what method do you currently use to launch an application?

the awkward way of closing anything that has opened up in that Metro interface, the lack of a close button seems really annoying

Yes, I think this is the single area where they have messed up, and made something for touchscreen, without a version that works well on a mouse or keyboard (actually I forget off hand - does alt+F4 work?) So I see this as more of a single issue, than the whole thing being designed for touchscreens only, and hopefully they will fix this up. For every other change though, I can either see it being something one might do even without touchscreens existing, or it's something that simply doesn't make sense on a touchscreen (e.g., right clicking, hotspots from mouse movement).

---

I see the later discussion has moved to "the improvements aren't that big" - well, you could say that of XP vs Vista, or Vista vs 7, or 2000 vs XP. Or each new version of OS X. Or a new release of Android. When software is mature, and it's good enough for you, then it's always going to be the case that there's less incentive to upgrade. I think that's a compliment of the OS being good - compared to the days when I was desperate to upgrade from 98 to 2000, because 98 was so bad and unstable... This is back-pedalling - if all people are saying is "Windows 8 has plenty of new features, but I don't really need them myself, and Windows 7 is good enough for my needs", that's not a criticism at all really.

As for the walled garden, I think that is a concern, and MS should be criticised. But Apple should be too - I don't think "desktop" vs "mobile" makes a different (my laptop is mobile too, and doesn't go on my desk - but it seems I see people using tablets more commonly on a desktop, as they don't work well on a lap...). Nor are IOS devices like consoles - no other smartphone platform (well, except Windows Phone?) was or is locked down, they have followed and still follow the same model as computer platforms. Same with tablets ("tablet" has always been ill-defined, but whether we mean a touchscreen PC, an oversized smartphone, a media player running an OS, or something that's basically a smartphone without the phone, all of these again have been open platforms whether it's Windows, Android, Maemo or whatever else). Edited by mdwh
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... navigating a tree of folders to find what you want is so much more modern...

It is indeed, because you do not have to remember the darn spelling (including/excluding vendor name and/or spaces) of a program that you maybe use once every 4-6 months. Most of the time, typing the most likely substring into the search box kind of works, but often enough it only comes up with a lot of shit -- which just isn't good enough, because it's a major step back as opposed to a well-sorted menu.

 

Under Win7, I have the programs that I use many-times-per-day pinned to the task bar, the programs that I use few-times-per-week pinned to the start menu (left side) and everything else, which is used rarely-if-ever in said folder hierarchy, sorted logically, not by program name. Things that I'm not interested in at all (messaging, social network shit and such) is not in the menu at all. This is a very good compromise in access time.

Win8/Metro lets you put everything on the front page, or it lets you search through a list of every single darn useless program and app that's on the computer, only assisted with some non-perfect substring matching on the program's name.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Win7, I have the programs that I use many-times-per-day pinned to the task bar, the programs that I use few-times-per-week pinned to the start menu (left side) and everything else, which is used rarely-if-ever in said folder hierarchy, sorted logically, not by program name.

Is it possible to have Windows 7 open sub-folders in a tree fashion?

Yes, I see the point that you could edit the shortcuts in the menu so that it had subfolders. Though I do wonder how many people actually do this (I mean don't get me wrong, even if it's a niche feature, it's fair enough to criticise - but the "They took away the start menu" noise about Windows 8 is very mainstream, yet I can't imagine your average user is there editing shortcuts and making their own menus...)

I agree it's a shame the Windows 8 start screen doesn't allow creation of subfolders, I miss that in Android too (versus Symbian, or even earlier "feature" phone platforms) (although you can at least in Android group together icons and have one level of subfolder). I think it would be good if this was added as a feature (even if it's only one sub-level, as in Android) - and hopefully such a method would be much easier than the method of editing/moving shortcuts in the start menu. Edited by mdwh
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Metro have an icon grouping mechanism? e.g. like on iOS, you can drag a bunch of 'desktop' icons together to put them in a sub-category / hierarchy.

Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Metro have an icon grouping mechanism? e.g. like on iOS, you can drag a bunch of 'desktop' icons together to put them in a sub-category / hierarchy.

Yes, you can group icons together. Showing all programs in Metro, groups all the icons of an application like it used to in the start menu of previous versions of Windows.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the awkward way of closing anything that has opened up in that Metro interface, the lack of a close button seems really annoying

Yes, I think this is the single area where they have messed up, and made something for touchscreen, without a version that works well on a mouse or keyboard (actually I forget off hand - does alt+F4 work?)
Yep, alt+F4 works, however once you do it a couple of times the click-drag-drag motion becomes quite natural - the only gripe I have with it is that it takes you back to the start screen and not the desktop (which is where I spend most of my time and user start8 as my app launcher... well, most of the apps I run are pinned on the start bar but still..).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like all you know about Windows 8 is the start menu / metro application FUD. How about:

 

(long list of stuff)

 

Most of these are useless features that either are not relevant or address the wrong thing, though.

 

Account Sync
Shit that I neither need nor want. Sending account data over the internet, and storing it on a Microsoft server, what an awesome idea (and, not knowing exactly what data or in what country and with what security measures your data will be stored). Besides, nothing you couldn't do before, only without the fancy buzzwords "Cloud" and "Skydrive".

Better Multi-Monitor support
Works perfectly well with Win7. In fact, worked almost perfectly, with some minor limitations, under WinXP for decades, too.

Better Explorer UI (With enhanced file copy dialog)
Of course, the useless file copy dialog is an outstanding operating system feature. Are you kidding me? Even more so as the Metro interface pretty much tries to get rid of the Desktop interface (which includes Explorer).
A true improvement (though of Explorer, not of "Windows") would be if moving/deleting/copying files was not implemented in such a darn stupid way alltogether (think of deleting a folder with 50,000 files).

Better Task Manager
The normal user won't understand much of the displayed information anyway. A normal user should not need Task Manager at all, except to kill a hung process once every 2-3 months or so. For that, the user only needs the information "Program name", and the option "Kill". Which the built-in Program-is-not-responding "smartness" should handle already, if it only worked as intended.

A programmer will not want to use Task Manager anyway, so it's irrelevant inhowfar it may or may not be better.

Refresh and Restore
Again, shit nobody needs, as it is addressing the symptom instead of the illness. Rather than removing the need to restore the system ever so often, they offer a faster and "better" way to do it. Great plan.
Unix-like systems just don't fuck up so you need to restore every week, one has to wonder why (yes they have other problems, but this certainly isn't one of them).

What would be a substantial improvement, that'd be a Windows with a useful security system (instead of an annoying but useless one) that doesn't allow every crap to brick your system.

Storage Spaces
Shit that nobody needs. Also, not substantially different from contingents, which already nobody needed. The more "smart" you get with disks, the harder it hits you once something breaks, one just shouldn't do that kind of thing. Being able to mount a volume at a particular mount point is by all means good enough as a "special feature" for a consumer operating system, in order to give the illusion of "one big disk".
If you really want/need something like "contingents" or "storage space", get a quality hardware RAID controller, buy a few extra disks, and run it in a non-dumb mode with redundancy. At least then you still have a fair chance to recover your data when a disk blows up or when Windows for some mystical reason won't boot any more, so BartPE or LinuxRescueCD are the only things that you have left in your hands (neither of which understand the super smartness of "storage spaces").

Of course you can also boot from the Windows DVD, which will scan for problems for half an hour and will then tell you that it couldn't find problems that can be fixed, offering to format the disk and reinstall Windows. Yay.

Faster Startup Times
The POST takes as long as Win7 starting, so where is the beef? Besides, that's probably the most ridiculous "feature" ever. If you have to start/restart 3-4 times on a single day, that's already a lot (including the retarded restarts imposed onto you by Windows Update and program installs!). What true, observable difference is there in 8 seconds versus 9 seconds on an average day where you boot exactly once in the morning?
What would really be an improvement, that'd be if you didn't need to restart your computer for updates and installs in the first place, and if Windows update wasn't nagging you every fucking 10 minutes for such useless stuff (luckily, group policies let you disable that, like most crap, but you have to painfully figure it out first).

Better File History
Again, shit that nobody needs, just like the retarded virtualization they introduced with Vista, instead of properly enforcing access rights. Don't fuck with the user in such a way. Don't always try to be smarter than the user.

Don't keep stuff on the disk when the user said he doesn't want it any more. Don't save stale versions, except when the user explicitly said he needs those (and for that, there's dedicated backup software, or revision control software). Just. Don't.

Enhanced Search
More shit that nobody needs. An useless service that takes away system resources, costs write cycles, and offers very little in return.

Secure Boot
Not a Win8 feature, but a BIOS feature, and the absolutely worst "feature" ever, even more so as Win8 locks itself in secretly without user consent. This, by definition, makes Windows 8 malware.
Besides, you should call it by its proper name, "Vendor Lock". It is not "secure" in any way, it only prevents you from booting into another operating system (it doesn't prevent bad people with physical access to your computer from doing bad things with it).

Better Security Settings
You should rather say "more dumbed down settings". With every Windows version, security settings are not getting better, they are only getting fewer. With Win8, you get to choose between an obscure A, B, and C, and some guy at Microsoft decides what's the best settings for you, and you're not being told what exactly is different between A, B, and C. Soon you'll not even get to choose at all any more.

Obscurity is, and has always been, one of the biggest problems with Windows security. Even as a somewhat educated user, you have no fucking clue what exactly is different between choosing "office network" or "home network" (apart from the misleading two-line description), or what exactly each of the 50 services that run by default is doing, which ones you need for daily operation, which ones are possibly harmful, and which ones you can disable without making the system unbootable. Not without spending a lot of time into research, anyway. It's even worse if you use a non-English Windows where all names have been translated in the most hideous possible way, so native speakers can't sometimes even understand their meaning and searching the web for them is an ordeal.

Better Family Controls
Again, shit -- not addressing the problem. Parent your kids instead of relying on some software to block what some guy at Microsoft thinks is right, and limit access to some hours, block some programs, etc.
This is like owning a gun. If you can't lock your gun in a strongbox and assert that your kids understand that guns are not toys, and that guns kill people, and if you can't teach them never to touch a gun when you're not in the room, then you just shouldn't have kids -- or a gun (or either of them). It's the same with a computer and the internet, or with alcohol, or with any other harmful thing.


People have raised kids with harmful things (wild animals, knives, cliffs, water) around them for millenia. People have taught their kids to handle these dangers for millenia. Some are admittedly just too stupid for that, and that's what "natural selection" takes care of, but most parents get it right 99.9% of the time. At least they used to, until it became "normal" to abandon kids and let the TV and the internet educate them while they feed on a mix of sugar and corn starch.

Awesome Quick Access Menu
Awesome in what way? How many times per day do you need to install/remove programs, change power settings, or open the control panel? Surely, you need a dedicated hotkey for these. Shame there's no hotkey for the start menu, now that would be truly useful... oh wait, there was one, once upon a time.

Hyper-V
It does what exactly that Joe Average needs?

Better Battery Life
Maybe, maybe not, not interesting for desktop anyway, and not what I see here. When the computer is idle and left alone, my UPS shows 125W under Windows XP (105W with EPU-6). Under Windows 7, it shows 90W, and under Windows 8 it equally shows 90W.

 

However, seeing how much useless crap is being animated, blurred in and out, and being blended in and out all the time I very much doubt that the "better battery life" claim is true at all (assuming you actually use the computer for something). Unless of course the GPU on your mobile magically runs pixel shaders without consuming energy because of Windows 8. If Windows 8 can truly do that, I apologize, in that case it is awesome.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me more than the missing start button or ugly UI is the DRM-BIOS that gets pushed onto people. If you buy a computer it should be your choice whats running on it and not of some company holding the key.

 

Good job that none of what you've described is actually happening then, isn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much hype about nothing,in about 3-4 years Microsoft will create a new os for pcs.You can say what you want about this os,but if you look at the general pc user's opinion,you'll see that the os will fail on pc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me more than the missing start button or ugly UI is the DRM-BIOS that gets pushed onto people. If you buy a computer it should be your choice whats running on it and not of some company holding the key.

 

All secure boot does is require a signed binary to boot. There is nothing preventing you from providing your own certificate for whatever binaries you want, or to disable secure boot from bios entirely. This is just more FUD around Microsoft restricting your choices.

 

 

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html

 

Fedora just paid $99 to Verisign and they can sign as many binaries as they want and all of them will load on any computer which supports the Windows 8 certificates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0