The windows desktop is unchanged, the Tile mode is for tile apps, they co exist on your mobile phone. Forget them for the time being. Think instead of the Tile UI as a better version of the Start Button Menu, access to programs is easier than with the start menu. Icons can be grouped together in islands. I hate the Start Button Menu now.

I'm indifferent to the start menu ... but what the Win7 start menu does show is my most recent activity ... if what I need isn't in the start menu, I use the search box and type in a few letters. Search box has always been a good idea ... has been in Apple's OS OSX for decades now as was always a part of iOS.

 

But I can see for those that don't really remember "text application names" (my elderly 80+ parents for example) but do work better with a images/icons, the usefulness of menu navigation or Tile UI ... fortunately both are available in Win7 ... key being both - in Win8 you just have a Tile UI (unless you're back in Desktop mode).

 

A good example of my home system and many of my friend's home PC's, there desktops have about 50-70 shortcuts/icons organized in various arrangements (across, down, corner groups, etc.). With Win8 Tile UI this just looks ugly and forces grouping into "tile islands" where content in the islands are not related. In fact, I'm not sure you can fit 50-70 tiles in Win8 - so the now one click away is at least two or more clicks and/or finger gestures away. So Win8 just doesn't work with any moderate complexity -- it clearly is aimed for smaller mobile screens with limited number of live tiles for people on the go ... so how did this layout end up being the default for desktop users who have a very different screen size and interaction?

 

Icons can be grouped together in Win7 also, right click desktop - Add folder and drag and drop your shortcuts into the folder ... the only thing missing is the automatic expansion of the folder to show what's in it (something that was available in OSX back in the Snow Leopard days).

 

Anyway, it seems Microsoft is rushing out Win9 (aka Windows Blue) with a very aggressive RTM of June 2013 (in just a few months) ... it will be a "free" upgrade for Win8 users. Unfortunately it doesn't look like they've addressed some of major issues around Win8 and I think it was supposed to be an SP1 for Win8 but now it might be sold as a "new version" in the hope consumers think it's different from Windows 8.

 

This is sadly and exactly what I thought Microsoft would do -- so those holding out for Windows 9 (aka Blue) may need to wait for Windows 10 and hope Microsoft "get it".

I've got hundreds of icons I don't think 40 is the limit. I swing down click bottom left launch Word or whatever and i'm in. My islands are all there, and I find them quickly. The search facility is good.

This is sadly and exactly what I thought Microsoft would do -- so those holding out for Windows 9 (aka Blue) may need to wait for Windows 10 and hope Microsoft "get it".

 

I don't think the next version of Windows will be any better for desktop users unless Windows 8 truly fails. They are set on having all devices use the exact same interface, whether it's a desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone or console. The way one uses these devices differs, so having the same interface is basically going to end up being a case of jack of all trades, master of none. This will also require application developers to properly design interfaces for all categories of devices.

 

Microsoft has had tablets for over ten years now, but they never really caught on. Largely because they tried to make you use the standard Windows desktop and applications on a smaller screen with a stylus. It didn't work. Trying to hit the icons on an Office toolbar was at best cumbersome. They also modelled the Windows Mobile interface on the desktop with a taskbar etc. Again, it was clunky and didn't work particularly well. Now they are doing the opposite and trying to move the desktop to use the same interface as a tablet or smartphone.

 

Then along came Apple who blew both markets out of the water. How? By realizing that smartphones and tablets are different than desktops and laptops, and require a different interface. Mac OS X and iOS share the same kernel and much of the underpinnings are related, but the interface on top is designed to suit the purpose of the device it is running on. Google also picked up on this pretty quickly as the original Android prototypes resembled the Windows Mobile and Blackberries of the time, not the current touch screen incarnation.

 

Microsoft rarely seems to get interfaces right. From reading various stories and articles, this seems to be a cultural thing which won't change overnight, if ever. I think this

summarizes it quite well (although it was supposedly produced by a team in Microsoft, so maybe there is some hope).

Can you share how you are accomplishing this in Metro/Modern UI mode? Took me a while to figure out how to just get a smaller and quirky 2nd window to display while in the Modern UI mode ... and it was not very useful when I did finally figure it out.

 

You can now thanks to a third party.

 

http://www.theverge....or-desktop-mode

 

Metro apps are designed for tablet use and are not meant to be used in the same multi-tasking way that traditional desktop apps are. Even how the apps are closed has been changed. Notice that they don't have an exit button?

You can now thanks to a third party.

 

http://www.theverge....or-desktop-mode

 

Metro apps are designed for tablet use and are not meant to be used in the same multi-tasking way that traditional desktop apps are. Even how the apps are closed has been changed. Notice that they don't have an exit button?

Which just confirms the point that the new UI isn't for a desktop system that is generally used in a multi-tasking environment.

 

I don't, and won't support any computer that's running Windows 8. If a customer wants to use Windows 8, then they're on their own and I'm quite clear about that from the get go.

As a programmer I could not agree more with the topic starter! In an company like Microsoft there are basic three things that can fail, one beeing management, two beeing economics and three beeing engeneering.

 

I would imagine we can already eliminate economics beeing a week point, so that leaves us with engineering and management. I would argue that Microsoft do have the neccesary engineering capability within their company, so that would leaves us with management as the primary candidate for a weak point.

 

So the question remains, could we blaim the departure of ACES and the Microsoft Flight Simulator era on other things than pure weak management

 

Could we blame it on technology, market venue, market knowledge, corporate decitions based on weak management reports, the fact that Microsoft did not ever had a ability to develop a worth while graphic engine to sustain the life of the simulator?

 

One can just imagine the resons, but i tend to lean into management in favour of the topic starter..

 

 

 

 

ould we blaim the departure of ACES and the Microsoft Flight Simulator era on other things than pure weak management

 

 Perhaps because its future market didn't justify further development?

 Perhaps because its future market didn't justify further development?

Lockheed came to a different conclusion than Microsoft.

Lockheed came to a different conclusion than Microsoft.

 

But Lockheed Martin isn't developing for FSnext's consumer/entertainment market.

But Lockheed Martin isn't developing for FSnext's consumer/entertainment market.

From what I understand their licencing of the code base from Microsoft prohibits them doing this so they have had to cater for a subset of the entire market and yet they still see it as profitable enough to go after. Micorsoft could just as easily have gone after the same market as LM.

 

Steve Balmer also said no would would pay that much for an iPhone so Microsoft can get things wrong.

LM is being funded by something other than "educational/training" sales of their modified version of FSX ... that significantly changes the priority of what goes into LM's version of FSX ... in other words "consumers" (errr...guess I should say educators and trainers) have no real input to what LM do -- and that could include breaking 3rd party compatibility.

 

If LM do indeed go full on DX10 and DX11 implementations that will for sure break compatibility with just about any product that works with textures (from aircraft to airports to scenery).  And without a commercial license are any 3rd party devs actually going to support P3D when it introduces significant breaking changes?  Because right now 3rd party devs are only having to make minor changes (if any at all) to support P3D ... what's gonna happen when they have to make MAJOR changes to support P3D?

 

Puzzling part -- why is Microsoft hanging on to those terms in the licensing?  They would ONLY do this if they had future plans for FSX ... which they did, it was MS Flight ... that failed/closed.  So the question remains ... 

Why is Microsoft still hanging on the "consumer" aspect of the license with LM?  Or maybe LM isn't interested in yet another round of license agreement changes with Microsoft ... which in itself should be a clear indicator as to the direction LM is going with their version of FSX (and it's not good for consumers).

 

I actually put together what I would consider a resource count required to put together a consumer version of FS11 and came up with this about 30 full times developers and 5 full time data acquisition/resource people.  So a minimum of 35 full time people to produce FS11 (within about 2 years) ... about $8.4M project with $1.6M overhead so about $10M to do the project.  Assume $1M sales at $60 (available online only) so $60M revenue ... so it's still a profitable process.  The problem is, it's not profitable enough for Microsoft ... but what company is willing to risk 35 full time resources?

 

If a product is good enough and commercial and the SDK is robust enough, it will bring in 3rd party support ... may take some time to establish.

 

And there is XP10, as much as I love XP10 ... it's 6-8 people and they seem intent on cross platform (which IS costing them time and resource to manage) and to reach FSX feature set, it's going to take many many many more years.  LR would need to increase their resource count by 5X ... even Austin doesn't have the money to make that happen -- he'll need investors, and investors means Austin no longer has full control.

 

I guess at this point, I just wish Microsoft would let go of the license terms or change them ... it's not a market they'll ever get back into.  The financial numbers are viable, but the question is who's got the $10M investment to make it a reality?

From what I understand their licencing of the code base from Microsoft prohibits them doing this so they have had to cater for a subset of the entire market and yet they still see it as profitable enough to go after. Micorsoft could just as easily have gone after the same market as LM.

 

Steve Balmer also said no would would pay that much for an iPhone so Microsoft can get things wrong.

 

Lockheed Martin's stated purpose in licencing ESP was ...to better train warfighters for battle...to build cost-effective simulation solutions for customized training for its worldwide customers....enable a whole new suite of innovative ESP-based solutions that will evolve beyond flight training to include ground and civil agency applications. The training needs of our military and civil government customers continue to expand,” said Chester Kennedy, vice president of Engineering at Lockheed Martin’s Simulation, Training & Support business unit. “

 

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/nov09/11-30warfightertrainingpr.aspx

 

It is perfectly rational  for Lockheed Martin to decide it is worthwhile to develop ESP for its commercial customers and for Microsoft to decide it is not worthwhile to develop FSX for the comsumer/entertainment market.

 

Lockheed Martin is already well-established in the aerospace, defence, and security markets which makes it much easier and less risky for it to achieve its purposes than Microsoft would.

Microsoft also said no one would buy iPhones so would take that rationality with a pinch of salt tbh.

 

Lockheed Martin is already well-established in the aerospace, defence, and security markets which makes it much easier and less risky for it to achieve its purposes than Microsoft would.

 

Agree, but I'd go as far as saying "no risk".

 

Hence the commerical/consumer's future is either LR or someone else with $10M to invest ... but either way, it's viable profit for potential investor ... 1,000,000 sales easy achievable.