True, but we shouldn't stay silent if it gets worse, either.
That's just it, you can't. The classic desktop is gone..or hidden to the point where system breaking hacks are needed to bring it back, and it's bugged.
This article is talking about the new control panel they've mangled.
The whole point of a gui is intuitive navigation. If the user is expected to type everything, why not just have a text console that switches to gfx mode when needed, like an old dos machine? This would actually fit the asinine 'fullscreen-by-default' trend better as well. The whole point of the gui 'revolution' was to eliminate guessing what command to enter. Now, they made the gui deliberately harder to use and less flexible, and then slapped a search box on it to compensate. Talk about coming full circle. How is this guesswork better for end users? If they couldn't handle dos, then how are they expected to know what 'magic' terms to search for to get at what they want within a much more complex system? How about the techs that have to support them? It's better to have the options available in one consistent place with short, intuitive, easy to remember names, so they at least someone knows where to look.
Hunting for (in this case, removed) configurability within hidden, 'intuitively' displayed oversimplification is a big problem with metro, and the fact it's foisted on the desktop makes it even worse. Really, they need two environments, one for touch, and one for full desktop. The control panel for metro controls metro, and the control panel for the desktop gives full configurability.
The other piece is I don't want all of my data and executables indexed into some database that gets uploaded to a microsoft account when that becomes mandatory in the future. Win-R and paths are sufficient, and faster.
1. the classic one or two word description control panel in 2k/xp was not an 'archiac scroll' nor equivalent to regedit. The panels had easy to remember names and had instantly recognizable icons. In vista, they changed them to awkward phrases and the default view hid a lot of them, but it was still possible to get a complete list.
2. the metro configurators require a lot more hunting and clicking to find what is necessary. Removing controls for things like window/font/widget colors and sizes does not help the user.
3. if you have to 'search' for it, the UI has failed, regardless whether the search is within the system or done with the internet. FUCK SEARCH.
4. appwiz.cpl likely won't exist in the new control panel. It'll be some full screen thing called "Program Management and Family Integration" with a huge list box that shows 4 entries at a time.
I suppose a lot of that already exists, but since it's not documented, such a project requires a lot of effort.
mod parent -1 for ad hominem fallacy.
The reason is because the old panel had everything in front of you. There was no guesswork where to go. It was either the control panel or one of the mmc snapins, with regedit as the worst case scenario. The tablet interfaces are too simplified to be of much use beyond basic settings. Their full screen nature is also irritating on a desktop.
Hell even the changes they did in vista are clunkier than 2k/xp was. Awkward, hard to remember phrases replaced one or two word descriptions, and a lot of the options were hidden, leaving the user to guess where things are, and no, searching for everything is NOT a solution. At least it was still possible to get a compact, complete list in vista through 8.1. If they plan to remove that in 10 and replace it with some stupid touch interface, I will avoid the os.
Change can be good but it's not always good.
One beer? You're an idiot. Who'd want to live in a society where job loss and de facto permanent unemployment occurs at the slightest infraction?
yeah, those men, you know? they're such pigs.. we oughta just ban them instead, then the world would be one huge hugbox....oh wait..
No. It's sexism, actually.
You mean any cuckolded married man? The saying goes "women are from venus" and not mars for a reason..
If counting calories is required, then maybe we aren't quite ready to go to space yet.
Of course, that's just the false pragamatism. In the old just post jim crow days, they did this with race, too. This article reeks of pro-feminist propaganda. What if they said that the crew should be all white because they scored higher on some test, or better yet, separate-but-equal missions, but the non white mission received half the funds? Seriously, in any other configuration, the statements made by this article would be considered bigoted, but since it's pro woman who cares, right? For great social justice?
The only people deserving of hate here are the hypocrites who come up with this bullshit and try to pass it off as moral.
Propagandists are not journalists.