Is anyone else finding it weird...

...that Microsoft itself is no longer using the Windows API's native GUI?
(Rather, they seem to be using a .Net GUI thing, which is, for no reason in particular, not the same).

At least they have the guts to have their little custom-made GUIs behaving (in terms of copy and paste, caps lock, etc.) like the Windows GUI I'm used to, but it really is weird.

One of the important features of Windows (being a windowing system) is that it has a backwards and forwards compatible GUI which every application on the desktop shares, right?
That way, be it in Windows XP, Windows Vista, or even Windows 95, an application will blend in.

This is defeated when developers start to build their own GUIs. If a future version of Windows was to add something magical to the native GUI then suddenly all those old programs that used their own crazy GUIs (eg: Office 2007) would become completely obsolete for no good reason!

So, with that in mind, how can Microsoft themselves see it fit to go around shafting their own GUI? What if other developers follow suit? Soon, Windows may as well be a bunch of terminal windows running applications that draw straight to the framebuffer!

I am seeing this trend, and it has me really wondering what they are thinking:

MSN 8: Looks the same in Windows XP and in Vista. It detracts from the desktop experience of both, since it looks nothing like the other applications which use the very nice native GUI.

Office 2007: Poke at it with Windowse. Like MSN 8, not even the Buttons are real buttons. It has about 3 windows. It looks just as out of place as MSN 8. Remember how Vista's favourite bit of eye candy was the pleasant transparent title bars?
I should add that the skinned title bar buttons bother me every time. They are in slightly different positions than I am used to, so they keep throwing me off.

I haven't yet installed the new Windows Media Player.
I'd like to know, though... have they fixed this yet?:


You can't make a GUI which you expect developers to use in order to create a consistent desktop experience and not even use it yourself!
Mac still sort of screws this up (some windows look like brushed metal, others don't); desktop Linux still does this (the different GUIs tend to be native to something else; be it Gnome, old Gnome, or KDE. This is horrible, and I am never in the right desktop environment).

Windows was actually the least screwed up, but now the folks at Microsoft are seeing it fit to join the trend and impose the inconsistent GUI mess upon themselves.

What are they thinking?

I think we all get the point that you don't like Microsoft...

Nah, I like Windows, MS Office is a great product, and Microsoft has some great tech support (eg: I got a 3 page response to a support question, and it wasn't a form letter).

I just wonder what's going on with their GUI. I don't mind the thing (after opening up unofficial themes), so why do they?

I wouldn't worry about it Mr Picklesworth. If the last 10 years are anything to go by, Microsoft will find many other ways and means to
'if it ain't broke, we'll break it a tiny bit more'.

> so why do they?

It's called PROGRESS!

Hello.

A GUI should not be restrained by convention. I appreciate all that OS suppliers offer in terms of custom and familiarity, however, if an application needs a different control it should not be restricted by the OS not providing a control.

If I'm off topic here, sorry, I've been drinking, enjoying a good afternoon's football.

:o)

Goodbye.

Yeah, if you don't like what Microsoft's doing, then go out and slap in that copy of Ubuntu and/or SuSE, and be done with it.

Microsoft has never followed their own UI guidelines. Ever. Every product they bring out has a whole new set of controls in it that aren't available to anyone outside of Microsoft. The way of things, I guess. Makes their apps look shinier so that people will buy the new versions I suppose.

I don't feel the need to bash them over it, however.

I'm not really /bashing/ them, I just find it strange.

If I was them, I would have Word forced to blend into the Vista UI so that XP users feel jealous. It blends into Vista a bit better, but the custom title bar (as with MSN 8) hurts it.

Regarding creating controls, I agree that such is necessary. If you get the chance, though, poke around Photoshop. They created many controls of their own, but they have it all seamlessly blended with the native UI.

Personally, I feel that Office 2007 blends very well into thoe whole Vista ethos.

XP tried to introduce new was of viewing things (like Control Panel) but it didn't quite work. Vista's interpretation does seem to work (at least it's logically implemented!).

The 'ribbons' (which isn't so much ribbons, because they nixed that idea a couple of months ago) interface for Office 2007 seems like an extension of Vista's propensity for grouping similar things together.

I think Office 2007's interface is a stroke of genius. When you take a step back from it and really look at what is going on (especially when you resize an Excel window), it is immediately obvious how much thought and hard work has gone into making the UI the most intuitive possible. With the number of options and functions available in Office (any version), I think the new way of presenting them is possibly the most efficient way possible.

I spend complete minutes in Word 2007 trying to find a way to do everyday menial tasks. The new layout is an absolute shambles. It's almost enough to make me go back to 2003, except I like Outlook 2007 too much.

Office 2007's interface is definitely a neat idea (and this Groove thing interests me), but that doesn't stop me from wondering "why not native Windows buttons?"... or,at least, why have they not yet added the features to native Windows GUI gadgets which even the people at Microsoft clearly want?

Since Vista and Office 07 were developed at the same time, why not enhance the Windows GUI in ways other than visual stuff (rather, new gadgets and new API calls) then put out a service pack for XP / 2000 to keep them forwards compatible?
(Or maybe they are planning to...)

Because if they keep making XP 'better' (for questionable values of better), then why would anyone pay for an upgrade to Vista?

Always remember that Microsoft is a marketing company first, and a technology company second.

well MS cant add new GUI features until macOS and Linux give them new things to steal.

If that was really true we would all be using one button mice.

I have heard the new version of Vista is gonna show a smiley face to people when it boots! ;)

http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/

Or, plug in any USB mouse of your choosing.

I found mightymouse terrible. It tried to resemble a 1 button mouse and mouse clicks aren't that accurate since you click on the same surface for left and right. Its an awful design thats all about form over function.

It may not look nice having defined buttons with seperate actions, but at least theres no obscurity. Even the mouse wheel on the mighto mouse is a tiny little ball with hardly any movement in. Probably the worst premium priced multifunction mouse ever.

I'll agree about the right button being hard to hit sometimes but that little mouse wheel nodule is pure bliss, IMO. I never had a lick of trouble with it and I -love- being able to easily scroll in any direction.

When I re-install, one of the first things I do is change the control panel to classic view.

It's simpler than the 'what do you want to do' approach.

Dabz

> I spend complete minutes in Word 2007 trying to
> find a way to do everyday menial tasks.

That's how I feel about XP all the time.
I love to boot up Office 95 and watch it run quickly, I dunno why anyone would ever need to upgrade to any other version of office to be honest. If only Windows itself was like that.