[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1358007965' post='5020737']
Windows 8 is tablet focused in that you can use it on a tablet without wanting to throw your computer into the wall.
[/quote]
Because having the same operating system and interface on two devices which by, nature, do not interact with the user in the same way, is logical.
“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”
Windows 8 is tablet focused in that you can use it on a tablet without wanting to throw your computer into the wall.
Because having the same operating system and interface on two devices which by, nature, do not interact with the user in the same way, is logical.
Why is it not logical to have a product that works for two use cases instead of two products that only work for one use case?
Windows 8 is tablet focused in that you can use it on a tablet without wanting to throw your computer into the wall.
Because having the same operating system and interface on two devices which by, nature, do not interact with the user in the same way, is logical.
Why is it not logical to have a product that works for two use cases instead of two products that only work for one use case?
Because a product generally tries to solve one problem well and let other products solve other problems (which possibly don't even exist yet). The same reason your image editor doesn't help you process text, remaster audio samples, browse the internet or play games all at the same time.
Single responsibility principle?
“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”
Because a product generally tries to solve one problem well and let other products solve other problems (which possibly don't even exist yet). The same reason your image editor doesn't help you process text, remaster audio samples, browse the internet or play games all at the same time.
Single responsibility principle?
Operating systems by their nature are not single responsibility software. I agree that the metro interface should have been toggleable but it really makes no difference in daily work on the computer. On my MBP without touch, I don't use metro. I use the desktop exclusively. On my surface, I only ever use the remote debugger on the desktop, everything else is metro. It does handle both sides well if you get over your bias and actually try it.
Because a product generally tries to solve one problem well and let other products solve other problems (which possibly don't even exist yet).
What OS does this anyway regardless of what input devices are being used? At least if you're looking at it as fine grained as you are. The problem OS's solve is simplifying users' computing.
Single responsibility principle?
That's not what the SRP talks about. If you were using it that way no program would ever do more than one thing. You would need separate programs to alter the font, format, and text of a text document. SRP is for modules of a product, not for products themselves. Computing would be an absolutely tedious experience if you followed SRP for products rather than modules of products.
Because a product generally tries to solve one problem well and let other products solve other problems (which possibly don't even exist yet). The same reason your image editor doesn't help you process text, remaster audio samples, browse the internet or play games all at the same time.
Single responsibility principle?
Operating systems by their nature are not single responsibility software. I agree that the metro interface should have been toggleable but it really makes no difference in daily work on the computer. On my MBP without touch, I don't use metro. I use the desktop exclusively. On my surface, I only ever use the remote debugger on the desktop, everything else is metro. It does handle both sides well if you get over your bias and actually try it.
The operating system itself isn't. But the operating system's interface is. You just mentioned you do not use metro on your MBP (which does not have a touch screen). So how does "metro" handle both sides well, since you are not using it for your non-touch computer? Regardless, why would you put an interface clearly designed for touch screens on hardware which does not have touch screens? It does not make any sense. It's like saying you're going to be browsing the internet using a wiimote. It is incoherent.
Besides, having two radically different desktop interfaces in a single operating system is just more software bloat, a better alternative would be to purchase the core OS separately, and then select the interface you want based on your needs. Have a touch-screen? Grab the "metro user interface". You use a desktop? Get the traditional interface. It makes so much more sense than just lumping everything together and have the user jump through hoops to disable (and not even completely remove) metro. Yes, it takes more effort to maintain, well, there's no free lunch, you can't maintain two radically different products by simply assuming they are, in fact, equivalent. Sorry.
“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”
Besides, having two radically different desktop interfaces in a single operating system is just more software bloat, a better alternative would be to purchase the core OS separately, and then select the interface you want based on your needs. Have a touch-screen? Grab the "metro user interface". You use a desktop? Get the traditional interface. It makes so much more sense than just lumping everything together and have the user jump through hoops to disable (and not even completely remove) metro. Yes, it takes more effort to maintain, well, there's no free lunch, you can't maintain two radically different products by simply assuming they are, in fact, equivalent. Sorry.
There aren't really hoops to jump through. Log in, click the desktop and you're pretty much back in Win 7 mode. Done. And maybe you haven't noticed, but there is a large increase in the number of laptops with touch available. There are systems being built to fully leverage the hybrid design of the OS.
Besides, having two radically different desktop interfaces in a single operating system is just more software bloat,
Yea... it's almost like having a terminal and desktop in a single operating system; that would be just silly.
Besides, having two radically different desktop interfaces in a single operating system is just more software bloat, a better alternative would be to purchase the core OS separately, and then select the interface you want based on your needs. Have a touch-screen? Grab the "metro user interface". You use a desktop? Get the traditional interface. It makes so much more sense than just lumping everything together and have the user jump through hoops to disable (and not even completely remove) metro. Yes, it takes more effort to maintain, well, there's no free lunch, you can't maintain two radically different products by simply assuming they are, in fact, equivalent. Sorry.
