Microsoft are actively trolling us. Aside from the fact that the new UI designed for touchscreens is the ugliest monster since Windows 3.1, the 99.99% of the world that have Windows boxes also don't have touch screens. Horrible UI. Their design philosophy is exactly like Belushi's zit impression in Animal House, except instead of mayo they are using design elements. The end result is the same; shiz everywhere. Heroin must be the main condiment at Redmond's snack bar.
It would be optional, you can switch to normal, at least I read somewhere that people trying beta reported it. I understand and agree with what you are saying - it will be a disaster. But a main reason for it - all of them - Apple, Microsoft they want uniform look and functionality on tablets, phones and computers... Image Unavailable, Please Login
It's designed to work well with a touch screen and without a touch screen. It looks really good to me, but I have not played with it. Both Apple and MS OSes have pros and cons. I agree that both companies have gone to hell by trying to marry touch and non-touch interfaces. I haven't played with Windows 8, but it looks good to me. What specifically don't you like? Would love to learn. Is Windows 8 out yet?
Good Lord............. THAT'S what it looks like???? Yikes (posted via iPad and I'm NOT an Apple fanboy) Jedi
Couple of colour changes, or a decent background pic, and it woulf look pretty great. That green is revolting. Reason for switching to "tiles" as opposed to the conventional icons are: 1. These provide a bigger target for people using touch screens. 2. Tiles allow more information to be displayed, like widgets. 3. Once customized, they are easier to spot as they are bigger than icons. You can always use icons, or icon graphics on tiles set to the same background colour as the background itself, with icon sizing and spacing reduced. That would essentially simulate the icon layout you are used to now, although the "widget-like" behaviour would still be noticeably different. I am neither an Apple nor MS fan. Happy to use either, as long as it allows me to do what I want and doesn't get in the way. And I haven't used Windows 8. But the tiles don't bother me, either looks-wise or what I understand to be the differences in functionality and behaviour. Wish I could be bothered to set up a virtual machine and install it.
It is geared toward the touchscreen, Few things I've spotted : if you swap to older mode and run their IE and back to tile mode and run IE two different copies of the browser run that was a bit weird, there is no start button on the old mode either, not so smooth if you run it with a mouse but I guess it is not meant to go that way.
What I have heard from friends who tried it, the 'non-touchscreen' mode is more of a crutch that only has very basic functionality. I have no idea what brought MS to essentially ditch the professional market (or does anyone work with a touchscreen?!) with that UI and only cater to the in comparison very small crowd that uses tablets...
It's a very bad UI on top of an aging UI tacked on to a geriatric OS. Not only that, it's an ugly, uninspired UI that's fantastically bad in every single aspect. Not to mention that running a UI on top of a UI costs resources. I've long been a supporter of Win_X, but their **** networking that's been broken on every level since Vista and vastly worse in W7 and their total deafness to this and 2012 really feels like MS stopped doing anything since 1995. Couple of tweaks and iOS is there, not only for ARM but for x86. One of the most important forks in MS's history and they pinch out a UI on top of a UI.
