windows 8 comparison

windows 8 now control minds of more than 1 million person all over the world ,every body still waiting for that moment when microsoft will open the door and say now  windows 8 is available .

i got a new article from Dario D. after reading it i think its interesting for that i want share it with you.
 thx Dario D.

That above is the new “Start Screen”, which, at least so far, completely replaces the Start Menu.
It currently runs full-screen only, for some reason (like tablets), with no choice to opt back into the Start Menu. It uses an interface style called “Metro”, first seen in Microsoft’s new, failing phone OS, Windows Phone 7. (I did some commentary on the look of Metro at the bottom of this. Only read if you’re nerdy, artsy, or both.)
As pointed out in the link above, I personally don’t like the look of Metro. I think its style is suited for other things, but certainly not computers/tablets/etc. Others might see it differently, but those others apparently haven’t been enough to circumvent this huge war that has sparked over the Start Screen. More on this later.

Fortunately, the desktop is still here, which currently looks like this

I think I like the new “ribbon”, at the top of folder windows. Perhaps it has some clunk, but it brings dense functionality, and can auto-hide.(Someone has also shown that it’s quite a bit easier to reach most features than in Windows XP’s interface. Not sure, though, if it’s ultimately faster than Vista’s or Win7’s. (In the list of how many steps things take, more ‘weight’ has to go to things that are used 
more often.))
The Start Screen and Metro style are the major new things, this time around, and I think Microsoft has 2 main ideas lying underneath them… the second of which I like a great deal:
1) Make Windows more accessible and inviting on things like tablets – where Windows 7 failed – without having to make a separate UI for them.
(Not sure why not. I think absolute UI unity, across all systems, is an overvalued concept.)
2) On ANY system, make Windows easier for technophobes, and those who are new to this stuff.
 (That’s most of the world’s population. Only 1 billion people have access to computers – a lowly 1 in 7 people – but mostly only through access at work and school. Only about 5% of households worldwide have at least 1 computer inside.)
Good ideas are one thing – and I love their pursuit – but then there’s good execution, which often doesn’t come so naturally…
To start, I believe the developmental progress of the entire world depends on computers not being presented as overly simple “easy-stations” for everyone. I really like the idea of making stuff easier for newbies, but, first, what about the others, who DO STUFF? And, second, what about when the newbies aren’t newbies anymore?
At least right now, there’s no option to bypass the Start Screen, and just log straight into the desktop… and there’s no option to get the Start Menu back, for the gobs of people who are going to be repulsed by the Start Screen. (perhaps that’s not everyone, but I think it’s going to be a LOT.)
Going further, the OS we have right now, Windows 7, already made launching and managing open programs take more clicks and more time than Vista before it… and now, Windows 8 is looking like it might turn that into a continuing legacy. (For instance, switching between your open Metro apps is a slow, painful process. Even Windows Phone 7 Mango handles it better.)
The “Building Windows 8” blog, written by various members of the Windows Team, makes the case for the Start Screen being more efficient and faster to work with than the Start Menu… however, there are a few significant flaws with the way they present their argument. They first point out (rightly) that nearly every element of the Start Menu is not 100% optimal, and could use some rethinking… That’s fine, but then they miss the most immediate, natural solution of just saying, “So, what we need, then, is to revise the Start Menu,” and instead say, “So, the Start Menu is doomed, and the Start SCREEN is the only way to save it.” I’m sure that wanting to cater to tablets/touch is also an influence… so, if that too is the case, why not just ask touch users if they’d like to activate a touch interface?
The biggest point that Microsoft made was something like this:
  • These heatmaps (below) show how long it takes for the mouse to hover over an icon. Green means you can hover quickly. Red means the opposite. You can see how the Start Menu is less efficient, because your most-used icons go up on top, in the distant red zone. The Start Screen, however, can be freely organized, so, first of all, your most-used icons can theoretically all go in the green, and second, there’s tons more space on-screen, so, this cancels the need to have to dig stuff out of the cumbersome ‘All Programs’ menu.

Aside from how easy it would be to redesign the Start Menu, to boost its efficiency, Microsoft overlooks quite a few important things in the efficiency argument:
Argument Flaws
– To start, I doubt that any users out there are going to put their important stuff in the bottom-left of the Start Screen. I assume most people are going to put all that up at the top. That’s just how people sort stuff; top to bottom. See this heatmap below (which I made in Photoshop, using no analysis), showing where I assume people actually put their most-used icons:

Also, when you create a new group of icons, everything is currently forced to start at the top. In order to put stuff at the bottom, you have to make the group packed full of icons.
The Start Screen DOES show more stuff up-front, which is good, especially if you have an app store where people mass-download all these little apps. However, later, I’ll get to a different way to serve these app-downloading people (aside from just a new, larger Start Menu, or something)…
– Microsoft forgets that the Start Screen has an opening AND closing animation, whereas the Start Menu instantly pops in and out. So, to a degree, this throws a wrench into the whole efficiency thing. I doubt they’d change the Start Screen to ever appear instantly, like the Start Menu. Too abrupt for something full-screen.
– They forget that the Start Screen doesn’t have a taskbar, so, flipping through the open Metro apps is aimless and slow. (You thumb through them one by one, till you bump into the one you want.)

 (I think it’s fantastic that Microsoft is trying to back its design with numbers and analysis. Using scientific info is very enlightening and rewarding. However, one thing that scientific study always needs is “peer review”… which means getting an outside evaluation of the study, to make sure all the right questions were asked, etc. The reason is that it’s *incredibly* easy to misinterpret what numbers are actually telling you. They need to be subjected to all factors, and put to the test. This is usually because people want their work (or study) to be fruitful, and not go to waste… so, they easily fall into the trap of “confirmation bias”, which means trying to see only the data that confirms what they want to see. They aren’t asking the question, “What does this info ULTIMATELY tell me,” they’re asking, “How much stuff here helps CONFIRM my theory (or reinforce my work)?” If not paying attention, a person can work with confirmation bias almost as naturally as breathing. Not a blamable thing.)

Based just on crucial looks, think about Windows Phone 7, which uses the Metro look. To start, Windows Phone 7 did NOT turn the heads of your common buyer, which should probably be a warning sign. When choosing products, I think the masses of uninformed buyers go by:
1) how a product “feels”, as in how the whole presentation tickles their brains…
2) how much they think they can actually use it (even if they aren’t thinking clearly about this one, and let the “feel” part coax them into over-estimating how much actual use it will be)…
3) whether or not they can justify the price.
As such, why would an uninformed buyer choose the 3rd or 4th-place appealing product (Windows Phone 7), if it both costs the same as the more tickly phones, and doesn’t obviously boast superior functionality? So, on top of Windows 8 having the same visual non-awesomeness, I think a much larger, more vocal group of people is going to be disgusted by the whole Metro thing, and wonder what is happening to the overall intelligence of computing. (On one hand, it’s clear what is happening – we’re dumbing down to serve lowest common denominator – but it’s not AT ALL clear if that’s necessary for the goals that Microsoft wants to accomplish here... like helping the world’s newbies get on board with computers.)
As I hope to show below, I don’t think we need to go for dead-simple in order to embrace touch-computing and newbie users. I think that if we just execute the Start Screen differently, using most of the same ideas, we can kill 3 birds with 1 stone… 1: zero controversy, zero risk… 2: all the touch/tablet functionality that Microsoft wants… 3: all the newbie-friendliness, even with extra power for techies. The only lost functionality would be whatever Metro brings to the table (if anything, besides app-loading speed), but I think the current look of Metro inspires simplicity to an anti-functional degree.

First, you’d choose between starting out with a simple interface, or a rich, advanced one:
Newbie Desktop

Note: there’s some intentional variance here and there, just to try out different stuff.)
It would be nice if the widget board came with a rich collection of additional widgets (or PROMINENT access to an online library), so you could add more stuff, like this YouTube panel:

You’ll note how I don’t believe in making things look TOO simple as a means to be newbie-friendly. To combat technophobia, I believe Windows should have something like simple, non-corporate-feeling training videos, and maybe intelligent boot-screen messages (like, “If you don’t know precisely who sent you an email, and the reason why, the odds that it’s spam hovers unbelievably close to 100%.”) If some computers are going to boot too fast, the messages could perhaps be added to the login screen, or presented in some other way.

Advanced Desktop

By the way, some might point out that the Start Screen sits in front of everything, easily accessible, whereas this would sit behind everything, and require minimizing all your windows in order to get to. Would that slow things down?
  • 1: No, because the Start Menu is back, and, for launching apps, that’s actually your biggest Start Screen equivalent. (remember, the Start Screen is just a full-screen Start Menu.)
  • 2: I’d introduce some quick ways to minimize, like double-clicking the desktop to clear everything away, or perhaps turning that tiny ‘Minimize All’ button in the bottom-right into a larger, second Start Button, just for bringing you back to the widget board.

The advanced and simple desktops are technically the same one. The only differences are how cluttered they start out, what widgets are showing, which taskbar skin is used (maybe), and whether or not the widget board is set to “Full Desktop”. (That would be a simple option. It would block out having traditional desktop icons above and below the widget board.)
With a layout like this, newbie users could easily and naturally work their way up to an “advanced” layout… and advanced users could do the opposite, if they wanted.
Same story with tablets:

Tablet Desktop (with Start Menu open)

HERE, I chose a partially Win7-style taskbar. Not sure how comfortable I am with the fact that additional programs that you launch would alternate appearing on the left and right sides, but it’s an idea.
I think a Start Menu like this could do well on desktop PC’s too (you’ll see some desktop features above, like a disc drive icon), but more thinking would have to go into some of the details, like how to handle larger programs that actually come with several smaller side-apps, or that need to put some important files up front… like you see often in the Start Menu. Maybe some app icons could expand, and show you the stuff they’re bundled with… I dunno. Got stuff to do. :P
To refresh your memory real quick, here’s Windows 8, so far:

(Fun fact: After Windows 8 loads, you start out FOUR screens away from the desktop. Wading through them is a marathon.)
So, we have last:
The Choice Screen

Something similar would come up whenever you create a new user account.)
Here’s a Windows 8 installation screen:

A little analysis…
Looking at Windows 8 so far, I feel that most people new to computers will be trained to feel that most tasks should be overly simple, as in dumb, without much to expect out of anything. Unfortunately, I think that would make people lazy, and less willing to use computers as anything more than enlarged smartphones (not in a good, convenience way, but like a candy-store app station way). The whole Start Screen / Metro interface is presented in this visually drained, educational-software fashion, and I think it would channel to the average person this pervasive feeling that computers aren’t important. It seems to come across as an “I-Serv-U” station (in a yucky sense), and not something intelligent.
There are GOOD ways to simplify, and I don’t mind the idea of simple, tablet-like apps on the PC, but I think this system-wide dumbing down will cultivate a laxy-lazy view of technology, more than anything. That overall scent of overbearing simplicity works on small convenience devices, like smartphones (and, to a degree, tablets), but I think this is a dangerous mentality to water down the mighty PC with.
For one, think about human progress in the upcoming times, and how reliant it will be on technology… Now, what do you think will happen if you tell people to start thinking of man’s best workhorse as a pony? The point: I believe you can still get EVERYONE on board here, without going the pony route… and, like a pony, newbies can still leisure-ride a workhorse.
Next, if these issues cause enough ruckus out there, and the whole thing is a flop, I think Microsoft might feel VERY awkward trying to later reintroduce things like the Start Menu, and overall “regular” approach to things. They might want to trash everything that was in any way part of the equation – including the past stuff that worked – and introduce something else completely new. (More risks. Microsoft is extremely hit or miss with risks.)
Now, I don’t question for a second that at least SOME of the people behind Windows 8 probably see it as “cool, lively modern-style”. (If that were NOT the case, they would have likely named Metro something like “kids” or “education”, and gone to something else)… but here’s the thing: those who advocate things almost always see them from the best possible angles that you could see them from. That’s part of how we get things like poor movies and books. Like with movies, those who are most closely tied to their creation (writer, director, etc) usually think everything is looking great… (just watch “making of” segments)… but, had others been given a meaningful chance, they could have pointed out that there were flaws. (I have this theory that there are actually very few bad movies/books/etc; just a whole lot that have to be seen from very, very specific angles.)
In the world of creating things (visual art, music, movies, writing, etc) it’s massively important to be self-critical, and not turn away any and all forms of judgment. It helps us uncover the other ways in which our stuff might be seen, and not just the good ones.
See, by nature, we people go through this 2-step thought-process when analyzing our own creations, or the things we advocate. There’s some variance from situation to situation, but, in general:
1) We ask ourselves, “Can I find ANY angle from which to see this where it WORKS?” (We usually start out only interested in whether or not something of ours CAN work, almost trying to MAKE IT work.)
2) If we succeed in the above, we think we’ve got it, and try NOT to uncover anything contrary. From then on, we’re all set, and plant this seed of belief… which we furiously try to only water with further reassurances.
This thought-process is devastating to artists and all kinds of “creators of stuff”, which is why it’s SO important for us to be surrounded by respected opinions… corrective, often critical voices. (We just have to make sure that these are constructive voices, specifically trying to make our work BETTER, and not vampires, trying to discourage us.)
Being SELF-corrective is mighty useful as well, just as long as we’re willing to actually sit there, and try to find holes in ideas that we’ve already fallen in love with. I think it’s much harder for most to go that route, because our minds have a nasty aversion to allowing opposing thoughts to threaten these ideas. Also, trying to sink your own stuff can be very rapid-fire with the challenges, so, in one brainstorming session, you might easily offer yourself more opposition than you’d normally come across in a year. However, the power it gives you in fixing and improving all of your aspirations is invaluable. It’s like… would you rather spend your life pursuing junk ideas that ultimately fail, or always scoring wins?

 (I think the kinds of ideas we need to judge within ourselves are quite varied. It could be whether or not a project or hobby will be as worthwhile as we thought, whether or not a “good idea” of ours will ACTUALLY work, whether or not we’re over-estimating the quality of things we’ve created, etc… Now, we do need SOME defense from these attacks, because even everyday thought can bombard us with all manner of false insecurities about things… so, it helps to really pay attention, and try to sort it all out. If your experiences are anything like mine, you’ll conclude that some challenging thoughts are legitimately true, most are plausible-but-not-ultimately-correct, and some are just wrong.)

For most people, we get so attached to the comfort of believing in our ideas/abilities/etc, we often couldn’t even begin to challenge them ourselves. At first, it’s way too uncomfortable; it’s like always holding a gun to our children. However, I personally find that doing this is so useful (I really hammer myself), that knowing what it does for you – like turning flat-out failures into things you’re really happy with – can make it one of your absolute favorite life tools.

So, my impression of the Windows 8 preview, so far:
I think it’s good ideas being presented completely the wrong way. Metro and the Start Screen scare me, but I think some of the underlying ideas there are good. I’d just present the whole thing from a different angle.

 by Dario.D

0 Responses to “windows 8 comparison”

Enregistrer un commentaire

All Rights Reserved © 2012 Full Windows 8 Tutorials | by BOUTAHAR |
, ,