Windows is weird.

Microsoft adopted touch, before it was ready.

It was an attempt to "turn everything into a smartphone". And they haven't given up on that idea, in fact, because "desktops are obsolete and smartphones are the future".

For example, Microsoft declared from its royal thrown that "touch screens should support ten point touch". Some nitwit at Microsoft thought it would be cool, if a user placed both hands, all eight fingers and two thumbs on the screen, and made a squeezing motion. Think how tiring it would be, to make that gesture ten times in a row, tired arms and all.

Of course, no other designer thought that this was a gesture worth adding to any UI. If you study users who make gestures (I have), you will discover most humans are rather simple at heart. And they will beat the piss out of two or three gestures, and can never be bothered to learn the rest. You don't really need a lot of gesture types, nor need fancy ones, to gain an advantage in terms of usage. The guys at my work, used to use the "dismiss" gesture like a house on fire. It was the high runner. So they would teach one another about "dismiss".

But the Microsoft designer said to itself "we should make all the hardware conform to this weird requirement, just in case".

This drove the touchscreen hardware people mad, because a lot of them were sporting one-touch screens. In some cases supporting what they considered to be a reasonable number of fingers for touch (like making a squeezing gesture with just two or three fingers might make sense).

So Microsoft drops their bomb, pushes for this, and the touchscreen industry is then just about dead, and two years later, there's a wave of ten finger touch ready screens. And of course, no one to buy them, because nobody gives a rats ass :-/ You need ten finger touch like you need a hole in the head.

Paul

Nope, it made sense to have the OS able to handle it.

Nope, it is nothing like a smartphone on a PC.

In fact all of desktops, laptops and tablets are all supported.

Servers too.

Throne, actually.

Just like they attempted to drive how lots of other stuff is done too, like plug and play etc.

There will always be some brain farts and bleeding wounds at the cutting edge of tech.

Gestures did in fact take off spectacularly, tho not often from Microsoft.

But they don't all choose to use the same gestures.

Same with other stuff like email, everyone doesn't do it the same way.

You do when some prefer some gestures and others prefer others.

That's not what its about.

That wasn't what its about. And you are talking about how touch is supported, we are discussing the fact that it needs to be.

All advances in tech sees that problem.

I can still remember when type ahead showed up on minis.

There will always be dead ends with any tech.

Complex touch gestures also affect usability and accessibility.

Glove makers now produce a number of products which have one finger which works on touch screens.

Not everyone has a full set of digits.

But everyone else, including most official and commercial web sites, thinks it is better to have a completely different GUI for small touch screens. And usually attempt to automatically detect whether you have one.

Amen to that!

That?s bullshit with the everyone else. And Apple doesn?t do it that way either. And neither does Linux.

Fine to support both touch and mouse. But for heaven's sake, not with the

I reckon that Win 10 is only usable if:

a) you install Thunderbird or Outlook email clients (ie not using Mail app)

b) you install ClassicShell (or equivalent) to give you a proper Win XP/Vista/7 Start menu, and to remove the "mess of tiles" in the Start menu

c) you use Control Panel applets rather than Settings as much as possible

Having learned one UI, I want to continue using that UI, rather than having to get used to a different one that was designed for touch screens.

Would it really have been so difficult to have two different skins, one for mouse and one for touch?

Is that not like saying that Win XP is only usable if you install Photoshop in place of Paint? i.e. the bundled entry level app is not a core part of the OS, just a simple entry level app to get you going. If you are a devoted TB user, then the same argument applies to pretty much any OS.

Many people don't even both with local mail clients these days. (and the web based version of Outlook is actually pretty good - certainly one of the best webmail clients about).

The tiles you can remove anyway. Classic shell was essential for Win 8 since there was no easy access without the rather jarring switch to the TIFKAM "start" screen. The win 10 one is useable enough, especially with the built in search. (by the time you have a reasonable sized library of software installed, hunting through groups on the menu is slow compared to typing the first couple of letter of the name of the thing you are looking for).

Yup settings is somewhat hampered buy not having a complete set of capabilities, and also having no "commit control"[1] in the form of a cancel button.

Which also means that you never get to benefit from useful enhancements to a UI. Fine if the one you learnt was the pinnacle of UI development and any future change will only dilute that perfection. But it seems like a tall ask!

But how many users want perfection? Or even "useful enhancements" if they mean having to abandon ways of doing things that have become ingrained enough to be unconscious? I want my computer to be as invisible and unobtrusive as possible so I can get straight to whatever I'm trying to accomplish with it. That can't be the case if I have to mentally walk myself through new procedures simply in the cause of being "up to date".

And that is what was done with Win10

It isnt a watered down UI and it needs to be the same UI with the 2 in 1 systems that can be a laptop or tablet at the flick of the case.

Plenty don't use PC email clients at all anymore, they use their phone or browser now. Or messenger etc.

I don't use the start menu much at all on

Not feasible with touch systems.

Not feasible with touch systems.

The world moves on and it makes more sense to have the PC UI closer to the one on the smartphone.

There will always be dinosaurs like you.

Some still insist on typing in command line text for everything.

Not viable for 2 in 1 systems.

We arent talking about perfection, just usability.

Plenty with the 2 in 1 systems that can be a tablet or a laptop at the flick of the case.

New tech needs different approaches. Hardly anyone uses desktops anymore.

I want mine to also be useable in various modes. I now do a lot of text entry by voice, even when texting and browsing.

It isnt about being up to date, its what is necessary with new tech like 2 in 1 systems.

I expect most can live without perfection.

What if it means you can leave behind some awkward cumbersome way of doing something and now do it in a simpler and more logical way?

What if the PC now runs faster?

Probably a week or so.

Sure I understand people don't like change. However sometimes you can make life harder for yourself by resisting for to long.

If it were only about being "up to date", then there is less imperative to change. However by sticking in the past you are also running an ever increasing risk from using older unpatched applications with known vulnerabilities. You can also run into problems when you buy yourself a new device, and find that there is no driver support for your old OS. Or you visit a web page you like and use, but find it need a later version of Chrome than your system will run etc.

The harsh reality is that you can get acquainted with win 10 at a time that is convenient for you. Or you can do it under duress when you PC fails and the only way to get working again is with a new PC that has 10 preloaded. So doing it in a controlled way (say inside a VM) is a way of dipping in your toe without fully committing.

A change is only an improvement if the user *perceives* it to be easier. Making users swipe their mouse to simulate a touchpad swipe (closing an application) is a change for the worse. That's why MS added min/max/close buttons on a lot of their Metro apps, to provide an alternative methods for mouse users to control their windows. There is nothing wrong with redundancy - two ways to achieve the same result, according to personal preference - but what users object to is the old way being removed altogether.

I have no problem with the many improvements that MS made "under the bonnet". It is a shame that in order to reap the benefit of them, you have to get used to a new UI.

When I'm switching between Windows 7, Windows 10 and Ubuntu/Debian, it is quite a problem! But I'm not exactly the normal case.

Probably the hardest things are adjusting to the new Start menu (on a PC that I haven't installed Classic Shell on) and working out which config settings are on Settings and which are on Control Panel.

The biggest problem I have switching between Window (7 or 10) and Ubuntu/Debian is really trivial: on dialogue boxes, Windows puts the "Yes" or "OK" button on the left and the "No" or "Cancel" button on the right, whereas UNIX puts them the opposite way round: muscle memory takes over from actually reading the buttons!

I like change if it is for the better. But change for the worse or for no perceived benefit is to be condemned. As my old grandpa used to say "Never progress backwards - only change if you can improve, otherwise stop tinkering."

I have yet to find anything that is easier to do with Windows 10 than Windows 7. At best it is unchanged, at worst it is more cumbersome. Apps which have a three-parallel lines Options button are an extra level of indirection compared with tradition apps that have a menu bar.

The "Mess of Tiles" for starting apps is a good idea in theory, but it suffers from:

a) a given icon is not always in the same place b) icons are monochrome (all-over red, all-over blue etc) rather than being the icon that the application designer devised and which can be copied to the desktop c) the icons are too large (intended for touch screen) so you can't see many at the same time

I don't like the way Windows 8 and 10 try to blend together two different operations: icons on the taskbar can either be shortcuts to start an application or a representation of an application that is already running. I always look up the way of enabling the Quick Launch toolbar and use that for shortcuts to applications that I want to start, and keep the running apps as different icons: and with a separate icon for every instance of the same running application.

You will have gathered that a lot of what I do in customising Win 10 is to make it behave more like the way Windows 95/98/2000/XP/Vista/7 behaved.

I use a Windows 7 PC for most of my work, but I have set up a Windows 10 PC (previously Windows 8) so as to get used to that as well.

Not for me they are not! They are variable with some having a very clear app icon just like the app's authors authors intended.

You can change the size of the icons - something like small, medium and large.

File history backup Better IPv6 support Enhanced search Virtual desktops Enhanced emoji support

And the FBI says you should get off W7!

But sadly you are in a minority. Many people - and judging by the way stuff is marketed - even *most* people - want a complicated flashy load of utter crap - what I call 'all chrome and tailfins' - to prove they are marvellously intelligent in being able to use it all !

The fact of the matter is that thus stiff is not designed to work via a simple ergonomic interface, like e.g., a pilots cockpit, where all the dials are in the main analogue, because its been proved that people can get more information faster from an analogue dial than a digital number display - no, its designed to sell to technically unsophisticated people who are impressed by apparent technical complexity that adds precisely nothing - hence 'all chrome and tailfins' - and its deployment has a technical term. 'creeping featurism'. That is the desire by marketing people and by software engineers not to concentrate on ease of use or getting the bugs out, but on adding FEATURES that no one actually needs or wants, except to impress other people with the fact that they have bought them.

I have manual single lens reflex cameras. To focus them I point then at the thing I want to be sharp, use a split image to get the focus right and then compose the shot and shoot.

My digital camera achieves the same result using autofocus, if I spend

My analogue telephone rings. I pick it up. The call is now active. To end I put it down. My StupidPhone?rings, I search the house till I can find it, and am then faced with a complicated display that changes every release, featuring a green circle - usually!

Whether I am supposed to swipe this up, down, left or right or tap on it, or press and hold it, is something I have after 4 years of usage, never discovered. My success rate in answering calls on it is 50% or less, as I try all of the above and usually succeed only in cancelling the call.

All the people I know have microwaves, mostly with a plethora of buttons and a digital display. Not one of them has ever been able to e.g. program it for 'full power for 3½ minutes'.

I have a microwave with two dials and no display. I probably cook more food in it, better, than all my friends put together.

Microsoft is a down-market consumer product these days - a Ford Edsel, all chrome and tailfins.

You can get a better chassis and suspension with Linux, and a better dashboard and set of controls with e.g. the MATE desktop interface.

And it wont cost you a cent, just your time installing it.

If you want features and bling, buy consumer kit. If you want functionality and ease of use, get what the professionals use.

Remember the difference between products that are designed to sell, and products that are designed to work.

A touch screen is the worst user interface device I have ever seen in my years as an engineer. Bar none. If your skin is dry it doesn't even work. The only thing going for it is, that it is, once you have a screen at all, dirt cheap to implement. Windows and a mouse was up till then the worst way. Any professional typist will never use a mouse as long as there are function keys or control, key sequences. Only when you are doing graphic design do you *need* a mouse. But people felt *clever* 'mastering windows'

Cheap crap.

Never used it, never needed it

Never used it, never needed it

Never used it, never needed it

Been using 'em for years with MATE desktop on linux

Never needed it.

Not to mention that they've been available for windows since a long time ago.

If ye have a desktop monitor within recommended distance, and it is touch active, ye will be constantly outstretching ya arms to interact with it - which will cause fatigue and blood flow issues.

That's with a vertical monitor, which how most of us use them. I could mount the monitor down at an angle closer to the keyboard (or indeed in replacement of) so that the experience becomes closer to that of a mobile phone / tablet. But that's mad - I will have neck problems with long use.

Academics in several institutes have been paid a lot of money to investigate ergonomics of touch interfaces, and their research either skewed to support sales of touch equipment, or warning findings ignored.

So touch screens, unless they are bespoke to commercial applications like point of sale terminals, or in use in mobile phones - are a bit of a nonsense for desktops.

With Windows and a need to dumb down the interface to improve IT accessibility, It could be better to use a video camera with 3D sensing and a simple impact sensor on the monitor. Then it can track ya fingers and respond to additional commands more natural to human emotions.

thumbs up - yes thumbs down - no start crying - system restore two finger salute - close application head butt - shut down

I'm sure there are others.

This will come, as android robots will also need to understand the same lingo.

Can someone in government fund my research?

And if you have a laptop with a touch surface, you will constantly accidentally touch the damned thing.

I don't want a car with touch interface, and I don't really want other people to have to take their eyes of the road to turn up/down the heater or retune their radio either.