The Insider News - CodeProject

Member 10088171 wrote:
No need for bus driving; your skills will be in demand on Linux platform; after all old good Windows and Linux have much in common.

Please note that closed application deployment is for Metro UI only; desktop app deployment is still the same regardless of Win version.

Linux? Naah. I never run into a need for that. I've got everything boilerplated under VS2008 and SQL Server for Windows platforms. The day I can't find someone needs that is the day I start driving a bus or become a beach bum!

I have some good news to update. First I updated (not upgraded) to windows 8.1 and at first glance I think the UI experience was worse than 8.0. But I had planned on installing "Start is back" so was not worried. See www.startisback.com . I just did this and highly recommend it. It does exactly what is claims to do and now Windows 8.1 works sanely like windows 7 AND allows for a better access to the new metro apps.

I really find it hard to imagine something like Adobe Photoshop or CorelDraw becoming a Metro app. While Metro has some benefits, IMO it loses the power of the desktop. The Desktop needs to be supported for a good number of years or Windows will fail. Why ?

Everyone talks about how mobile is changing everything and that desktop PC's will disappear and everyone will have tablets in the future. I doubt it. What we are seeing is actually different. When I first started writing custom software for businesses in the late 80's (anyone remember CPM ?) and early 90's computers were very expensive. They were considered a business tool, not a consumer product. A cheap PC cost at least $2000 to $3000 ! In time, the cost of computer hardware dropped significantly and especially with globalization (aka. made in china) prices dropped so low that computer now became affordable by the masses. With this began the consumerization of PC's. Everyone could afford a computer, but there was something wrong with this. The average person who bought a PC, understood it very little. I would find myself helping consumers with their computers and they couldn't do simple things (like copy files). In essence, they had too much power in their hands. PC's now were being used as over glorified game machines, web browsers and email tools. Most consumers did not need all the power of the PC nor did they need overly complex software. So many times consumers when buying a PC would be oversold "power machines" by over zealous sales people (you need more ram, need bigger harddrive, need super duper CPU). Then something strange happened. Apple got the idea that consumers needed dedicated devices geared towards ease of use and designed for consumer needs. First it was Ipods/MP3 players and then tablets. Now everyone wants a tablet, something simple, just touch the screen and no need for a mouse or a keyboard. This new generation of computerized devices actually fit the needs of many consumers (light weight, not complex, just buy apps in an app store). So does this mean the end of the PC as we know it ? Does this mean the Desktop is dead ?

Absolutely not. Why ?

Because of the consumerization of the PC, the market is now dividing itself back towards its origins. PC's were originally intended as business machines, not consumer products. Now that there are consumer products to replace PC's, PC's are falling back to their origin of being a business machine designed to solve business needs. Of course a certain percentage of the PC market will fall to the tablet, but in time I venture to guess that it should level off and PC's will once again fall into the domain of the business world.

Now Metro for the enterprise and small businesses is a different story !!! I find it hard to believe that the sandboxed Metro environment (and even touch for that matter) can fulfill all the needs of business users. No touch screen keyboard could ever replace a quality mechanical keyboard for power users. No touch screen interface could replace the mouse for some power users (ie. CAD, animation, video editing, graphics). The mouse is a unique device which has proven itself over decades and will not be easily replaced. Full screen (unwindowed) apps just can't replace windowed apps, used on the desktop. Power users may have two, three or four apps running at the same time. They may have two or even three monitors connected to their PC. Power users need access to everything the PC offers and can ill afford to be stuck in a sandbox.

Lastly, what about backward compatibility. Backward compatiblity has been Windows biggest strength, despite Apples idea that the old should be disgarded. You see, Windows/PC's are used in business and businesses can ill afford a lack of backward compatibility. Look at how many XP machines are still being used by businesses. Does anyone really thing that all businesses will simply drop not only all XP machines, but all Vista and Windows 7 machines for the sake of Windows 8 and touch and be forced to rewrite every single app they use to a Metro design ? That makes no sense.

The real trick here is for developers to learn how to tap into the new features of Windows 8 (ie better touch and other devices) to design software which is smart enough to run on Windows 8 and get the most out of it, but still be able to run on Windows XP, Vista and 7. By doing this, the desktop should continue for many years to come.

Just to follow up on my post. This is why for the last ten years I have been learning how to tap into the WIN32 API in a way where I can leverage both the old and the new. Rather than always designing apps for the latest version of Windows (and then it can't run on older versions), instead I find ways to make software run on both. One of the beauties of the WIN32 API is a simple technique of loading DLL's dynamically (LoadLibrary), then poll the DLL to see whether an API exists and if it does use a new feature and if it does not, then fall back and use something all versions of Windows contain instead.

There are also many power features in Windows, which have existed since Windows 95, but many programmers may take advantage of them. For example, the Windows DIB API's are very powerful and allow one to build heavy duty graphic features, which don't require any special hardware and which can run on all versions of Windows.

Simply put, programmers need to push the limits of the desktop further than they have in the past. Software needs to be dynamic, changing based on the needs. Run an app on XP and an app works like normal, expecting a mouse and keyboard. Run it on Windows 8, then it should check for touch, dynamically change to accomodate tablets and mobile devices. Autoscaling whould be built into the apps so it knows how to redesign itself intelligently based on the DPI and the device type. In essence programmers need to design smarter software, which can tap into the power of the desktop and shine even on Windows 8.

This is one of the reasons the Intel/Lenovo app contest is so exciting ! They want to see what we can do with the desktop. They want to see if programmers can push the limits of the desktop further, taking advantages of newer PC's and devices.

This is it exactly.
Most people who have a desktop do because that was their only option.
They sit in the corner of a room with their own desk, they need power, often they are noisy and they're not portable. You have to wait a minute or two for it to power up and login to. To a large extent, a desktop for mundane family tasks are odious and an inconvenience.

I'm a developer so we have a powerful machine at home that the family has come to use over time. My wife now has a tablet which she uses in preference to the desktop. My son has a smartphone which does most of what he wants. That is the pattern that we are seeing all over the place.

Eventually, I will be the only user of the desktop as it was many years ago.

I've read through all of the replies and I think there is one thing that Microsoft is missing. Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks). Manufacturing, design, development, test and measurement all make heavy use of desktop computers either for the power they provide or the ability to connect to instruments/devices. Not to mention servers.

The desktop is a lot more prevalent than most people give credit to. Tablets have their place in these environments (I see a tech walking around a factory with a tablet so he can monitor the processes or, maybe, turn a piece of equipment on or off - by talking to another machine), but they are not the machine that is doing the real work. Offices need a lot of typing for one thing.

I constantly have multiple applications open that share data between them. Tablets are definitely not good for those types of applications.

I think my point here is that the desktop world is larger than Microsoft appears to be thinking it is. There is room for an OS that adapts to multiple environments. What's that idea? Make the machine do the work of adapting - not the people? What a strange concept - that computers could make our life easier.

Rob Cole
(Yes, I'm a developer from a time when I had to clarify that I did not do photographs)

rcole117 wrote:
Look around the office, any office and you will see a lot of desktop type computers (possibly laptops in docks).

When commentators speak of "the death of the PC" I don't think they actually mean that desktop-style interaction will go. I think they mean the big clunky beige box.

My take on Surface is that Microsoft wants you to own a Surface Pro as your desktop. You carry it around, you use it at home, on the train, everywhere, and when you come into the office you pop it in its dock and it becomes your desktop. Think of it as the evolution of the laptop.

It's a brilliant idea and it will happen.

They just tried to fly before they could walk.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

Maybe I'm not as eloquent as I should be to express the ideas bubbling through my mind. There are many excellent points in previous posts (including yours) that state how the applications and the OS should adapt to the environment (read: machine they are running on) and I heartily agree.

Despite the fact that I consider myself a power user who is split between developing applications and building 3D graphics and animations (for which I do prefer the big clunky beige box with its amazing power, multiple monitors and multiple graphics cards), I can see that easier to use systems would benefit a majority of users. Until such time as the tablets can perform to the same level as the computers I currently use (and yes, I believe this increase in capability will happen) and business/industry adopts them in a BIG way, the support for all of the possible uses should continue. I know it's easier to support if you can get everyone into the same box, but there are a lot of us "individuals" out here and as many uses for the computers as there are users (almost).

I know that industrial computers (rack mounted, big, clunky boxes) are already a niche market and they will not be going away soon. Not until you can connect scads of instruments to a computer without having to add a number of internal cards (USB, Wifi, other RF are still not fast enough for a lot of applications).

Alright, kind of random thoughts there, but it's the way I feel. I'm not a stick-in-the-mud but I prefer my tools to be able to do what I want to do and not change what I do because the tools do things differently.

Rob Cole
Computerized Industrial Test and Measurement Proponent

The excuse of Surface failure in corporate corridors is that Microsoft is ahead of its time; yes you read it correctly; Microsoft is ahead of the pack Smile | :)

As they were with the tablet PC and Windows CE.

They just don't have the fortitude to hold off releasing until it's actually working well. Their move to having their own hardware is 10 years too late, but a welcome development, and may help them bridge the gap between what they want their software to do and what the hardware is able.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

I am big fan of MS (at least until now pending clarification from MS); best most productive IDE, innovative software and hardware technologies if not best including Surface, phone; even if it is bad timing and targeting wrong user base.

With Win 8 there are some fundamental issues;

One of them is big thing lurking here: Uncertainty. What is the future of Windows platform, .Net and associated technologies 5-10 years out. I understand difficulty answering this question because we are at technological crossroads. However, clarity is the most important thing here because software development cycle and its lifetime is much longer than 6 months.

Same questions are coming from hardware manufacturers; MS served as an umbrella for 1000's different configurations; MS are you with us or against us?

And similarly with developers; are you abandoning us in favor of in house development and closed platform? When we will know what is the plan and your vision?

MS does not have much time to clarify it or trying to figure it out. No one is going to wait too long because it is too costly.

Chris Maunder wrote:
You carry it around, you use it at home, on the train, everywhere, and when you come into the office you pop it in its dock and it becomes your desktop. Think of it as the evolution of the laptop.

It's a brilliant idea and it will happen.

I for one will not be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Developers made Windows what it is today (or was).

Piss em off - and they will be off to greener pastures.

Who the ____ would want to write C++ low level on a touch screen?!?

I think some of these younger MS coders and designers having been playing in la la land too long. Someone should show them what's under the hood.

That's right - go ahead and totally destroy what you've spent ages developing... and start from scratch.... we'll have to find an OS that will work for people that actually create applications et al for the OS to become popular. Someone should just pull all source from MS and leave them to play with IE and slabs of glass.

Some days I swear it's April Fools.

Rene Pilon wrote:
Developers made Windows what it is today (or was).

Sales made the market, developers merely go where the jobs are.

Actually - the title of this article should be:

Desktop - Say Goodbye to Windows.

METRO
=====
My take on Metro is that it is primarily designed to be the gateway to the devices and service vision Microsoft has to protect/regain their dominant position in the Software market-place. I am not sure it has anything to do with what is better for the user.

Not all systems are primarily used for entertainment or social networking. I do think that a touch-screen is appropriate for many user applications, e.g. Retail POS, if the screen real-estate is realistic. Think of one of the millions of accountants using touch-screen to do entries each day. That should slow the financial world down by an order of magnitude or so. For developers the mouse and keyboard seems mandatory to me.

The idea that we will be required to work as we are told rather than we have alternatives is repugnant to me. The amount of Metro push-back I read about makes me feel that I am far the only one thinking this.

I realize that different levels of development effort are implied if Microsoft does it all. But maybe that is not necessary. There are lots of talented devlopers that can create products to augment/enhance a Microsoft OS. Microsoft should be encouraged to make sure the necessary APIs and other tools are continually made available.

In short, let's keep the Mouse and the tactile keyboard for those that need/prefer them.

THE CLOUD
=========
I am a cloud skeptic still. There is no doubt that it is coming like a freight-train. The reliabilty, privacy, and security issues trouble me. In a business setting (my primary interest) I am very uncomfortable with these issues. There seems to be article afer article supporting this. The cloud is a hackers dream. The cloud is their underground YouTube, their piggy-bank, etc.

The future seems to destined to be phablets and cloud servers. The future seems to be 5 years from now at the most. I am not sure we will be happy we went there. The software and information companies are already replacing the Cable companies. The monopoly and consumer-marginalization characteristics of Cable companies was never my preference.

I guess this is a bit of a rant, but that is where I am at on these issues.

"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"

dpminusa wrote:
The reliabilty, privacy, and security issues trouble me.

Not to mention of course the fact that it is a company. And if all of your company assets are on another companies computers and that company goes away you are in a lot of trouble in the short term and perhaps even the long term. To me it seems like no one (no developers) consider that when your assets are hosted that they must be backed up to a different hosting site (to a different company.)

This isn't just hypothetical as it has already happened when people lost their content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Data_retention[^]

Yep!!

To me this the third iteration of large off-site server farms in the industry. The first were Data Centers, the second were Application Service Providers (ASP). I saw some of my peers buy into the ASP paradigm and invest hundreds of thousands. They all failed and some had law suits to deal with exactly for the reason you stated.

The technology and sensibility is better now to try the ASP idea again and call it the Cloud. It would NOT be a good idea to call it an ASP again.

Most of the reasons the ASP's failed are still issues that are not well resolved. Robustness, Capacity, Security, Service, Price Mobiity, Data Managment, etc., etc. It is just very timely for other reasons. Maybe mostly because the largest industry corporations can benefit tremedously by becoming the new "cable-esque" companies with devices, services, subscribers, and near monopolies.

I would prefer a flatter, broader, level playing field myself. Some of our potential safeguards are influencers like YouTube, Twitter, Yelp, etc. Public opinion can be very quickly expressed and felt. We need these watchdog vehicles.

I am unconfortable with the direction of the internet as it morphs from its initial intent. I was very surprised to see Berners-Lee starting to chime in with the large players now. He an organizations like the EFF were keeping more of them honest in the past.

Some thoughts for what they are worth. Maybe I have just been in the industry too long.

"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"

Maybe Microsoft should follow the Apple model, they seem to have it right: the same OS for mobile touch devices (phones & tablets) and a desktop OS for 'not so' mobile devices (laptops and the like). Seems to work quite well to me. Personally, I hate Wate (or should that be Weight!), much prefer Weven.

I had a reaction of almost horror when I first encountered the Metro UI. I am still on W7 and will remain on it until they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead grasp. I also retain an old Dell laptop with XP SP3 and Office 2003 that I still use occasionally for writing.

My guess is that the Microsoft developers themselves will lead the push to make desktop product development (and by extension content production and data entry) a priority again.

If, as many seem to be saying, the Metro UI is anathema to these tasks, then the Microsoft developers would have been, or will be, at the bleeding edge of that experience and they will have an impact on the trajectory of the Windows UI experience. Their own productivity may well demand redress.

My spouse uses an older MacBook Air (I am not familiar with the latest Mac laptop UI) that she purchased in 2010 and it has Mac OS X Snow Leopard on it. That operating system UI is windowed and not touch-centric like the UI on the iPads and iPods of the time. I could be wrong, but it seems even Apple recognized that there was no one-UI-style-fits-all path. (Just a SWAG on my part.)

I'm with you on this Chris. I think the pendulum has swung too far one way, and that it WILL swing back.

The Start button has returned, right? A clue?

Interesting days ahead.

Mike

PS. Any relation to the Maunders Food Shop in Aurora? My daughter used to live off Wellington.

Cheers,
Mike Fidler

The start button in 8.1 is just a button. It's not the in-place program search or quick list of commonly used programs that it was. Window-X gives you quick links to lots of fun stuff - but show me a mum-or-dad user who knows about that?

No relation to the Maunders in Aurora but I'm sure I ride past their place fairly regularly, and I'm positive they are fine, upstanding, intelligent and shockingly good-looking members of the community.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

What is the desktop used for? A picture and a lot of clickable icons to launch programs. Most computers I see are cluttered with Icons on the Desktop. I like win 8 because it takes the most used feature (IMO) of windows --- Launching an app by clicking on the desktop. Now there is a managed way to have that feature, the "Start Screen". The start menu was for power users. The start screen is for newbie and power user. Metro apps will get better once everyone stops complaining and actually let Microsoft know what will make "Metro" better.

Dear Microsoft,
Please make metro better by (sorry I refer to is as metro but it the only way I know you know what I am talking about)

1) Since file access is limited to developers give metro a full featured file explorer/picker/saver/opener similar to the desktop version with a panel on the left with favorites, network, etc... and different views List, Detail, Thumbnail.....
2) Letting multiple apps snap side by side is good. Next Make them Snap side by side and top to bottom for a fully customizable screen experience.
3)To ease everyone's gripping please let power users have floating metro windows in metro mode. I know its not the direction you wanted for metro but make it a hidden option so power users will stop their griping. If you only make it an option for certain screen sizes or multiple monitors that will cut down on the potential people getting confused about this feature.

The answer is NO. We want your full attention to news and ads so you cannot ignore them. We will deliver targeted content according to your psychological profile. We will train your brain-hand reflex response to content so you will react to it mechanically. We like your profile already. You get easily fooled.

Chris Maunder wrote:
am at a loss to understand how the Metro UI in its current form can be
considered a sensible direction

It isn't a sensible direction for us, the users. It is the only direction Microsoft can see for us users, that leads to a Microsoft company down the road.

They need us users to feel so comfortable on their OS on all platforms, that we pull them along with us onto all the devices we want to use. The desktop was tried on small touchscreen devices and it doesn't work, hence Metro. Metro isn't optimal for desktop system users, but it can work there. Microsoft is panicking and apparently doesn't feel they have the time to give us all a transition OS version, hence the strongarm tactics to force all their users to switch to Metro.

Think of Microsoft like a scared and panicked 800 pound gorilla.

We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.

IMO, after using Windows 8 since the initial release, I see an issue with a distinct separation between desktop and tablet UIs. I find that, being a 'producer' and not a 'consumer' I spend most of my time in the desktop UI and the Metro UI can get in the way.

They should certainly keep the new Metro style, as it's easier to look at, put simply. But I think it would be good for everyone all around if they would release a Desktop Edition and a Tablet Edition separately, where the Desktop version is significantly different than the Tablet version.

I think this would easily satisfy both developers (producers) and users (consumers) needs.

Alternatively, they can offer two modes of Windows, but I think this would be inefficient.

Also, they could simply make improvements to the Metro UI to ease it's use as a development/creation tool.

Either way, the current iteration isn't what most people are looking for. Tablet users generally want all metro with no desktop, developers want their desktop back with no metro UI. Though most, like me, do like the newer style, the UI is broken as a development UI.

I don't think the desktop will even come close to dying off in the near future, I think desktops will remain roughly the same as tablets and smartphones continue to grow.