Why is the Windows 8 theme so ugly?

[ControlD]

The other issue is Windows still has lots of cruft and spaghetti code from years of layering shit on top of the old in order to support Windows 2.1 286/386 applications. So you end up with a cruddy non object oriented API based on win16, all they did was extend it to 64 bit but it all ties back to win16.

Even WinRT still has to sit on top of the antiquated Win32 API in in order to function.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

First, Windows 8 is certainly not limited to 16 colors. Can you imagine browsing the web or playing games with an operating system that is limited to 16 colors? The interface is not limited to 16 colors either. MS certainly did choose a rather flat default scheme for the Metro desktop, but it isn't 16 colors.

Windows 8 also introduced a new API (WinRT) with Windows 8. I believe most Metro apps are coded with Javascript, but you can certainly still use C# and/or .NET for Windows application programming. All three are object oriented languages. Also, the new API is native to Windows 8, it is not a layer on top of the Win32 API as you suggest.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Where are you getting this stuff from?

First, Windows 8 is certainly not limited to 16 colors. Can you imagine browsing the web or playing games with an operating system that is limited to 16 colors? The interface is not limited to 16 colors either. MS certainly did choose a rather flat default scheme for the Metro desktop, but it isn't 16 colors.

Windows 8 also introduced a new API (WinRT) with Windows 8. I believe most Metro apps are coded with Javascript, but you can certainly still use C# and/or .NET for Windows application programming. All three are object oriented languages. Also, the new API is native to Windows 8, it is not a layer on top of the Win32 API as you suggest.

The 16 colors is the Interface UI elements, not the content.

WinRT sits right on top of WinRT. It is not a replacement for Win32.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Even mobile phones can easily handle 16 bit or higher bit depth colours so there’s no technical reason to limit an interface to 16 colours.


Microsoft merged the consumer line with the workstation line with XP.
With 32 bit versions of XP or later 16 bit applications are run in a subsystem.
With 64 bit versions of Windows 32 bit application are also run in a subsystem.
What you describe is more akin to the massive kludge that was Windows 95 – ME.

Win32 is based on the old APIs all they did was extend things. You are thinking of the Thunking of Win95.

Win32 is an ugly non object oriented API based on an ancient API, All Microsoft did was extend it.

What Microsoft should have done was what apple did. "Carbonize" it.

Keep Win32 for legacy apps, but freeze the features and let developers know its EOL. Then create a modern clean object oriented API.

I think Microsoft attempted to modernize things with the whole Longhorn project but it ended up an unmitigated disaster and years wasted.

 

[ControlD]

The 16 colors is the Interface UI elements, not the content.

WinRT sits right on top of WinRT. It is not a replacement for Win32.

That architecture picture is interesting. The one I was referring to looks like this:

I wonder which one is correct? I had been assuming that the "traditional" desktop still used Win32 and "modern" applications were using the newer WinRT API.

 

[douglasb]

That architecture picture is interesting. The one I was referring to looks like this:

I wonder which one is correct? I had been assuming that the "traditional" desktop still used Win32 and "modern" applications were using the newer WinRT API.

I have heard both sides, and no word from Microsoft confirming either. Some say WinRT is a wrapper for Win32, others say that WinRT sits directly on top of the kernel.

 

[douglasb]

The other issue is Windows still has lots of cruft and spaghetti code from years of layering shit on top of the old in order to support Windows 2.1 286/386 applications. So you end up with a cruddy non object oriented API based on win16, all they did was extend it to 64 bit but it all ties back to win16.

Even WinRT still has to sit on top of the antiquated Win32 API in in order to function.

...


Unlike OS X which can scale to two different environments, Darwin and Cocoa scale nicely down to the phone level.

The Microsoft Behemoth with decades of legacy cruft requires lots of hacks to work on tablets.

This is mostly (but not totally) correct. Portions of Windows OS that have historically been written in C are being converted to C++, but as you can imagine, this is a long and tedious process. There is still a lot of cruft and spaghetti left in Windows. The good news is that it is slowly but surely getting phased out. The bad news is that they haven't exactly been clear with their vision for developers, and there may be no API to speak of if the future Windows only has "Metro"-style apps.

Apple fared slightly better with OS X, partially because they used Objective C, but they are starting to run into the same sorts of problems. They are basically "stuck with" Objective C at this point because they are not willing to invest the time and money into the massive rewrites that would be necessary to sort out all of the cruft and spaghetti. The other advantage Apple has is that they had the foresight to write Darwin in such a way that it scales well to desktops, tablets, phones, etc.

 

[HeXen]

I'd like to see the registry phased out and force developers to not rely on it, all it does is create problems from installing and uninstalling so many 3rd party softwares. Even with manual removal it's amazing how many apps out there have hidden entries or alter existing ones which is likely why my "PC Settings" menu is all blacked out atm and i can't read anything unless my mouse is directly over it.

 

[TheSlamma]

I believe MS wants the old desktop to look clunky since they are trying to entice people to their new "apps" environment.

As to the lack of Aero I wonder if its to maximize battery life on Surface Pro's while keeping the interface identical to desktop and laptops.

If that is the case they should have gotten the store populated with good software first.

I'm shocked at how pathetic the library is in the MS store, the word 'awful' doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the selection. They seriously can't be wondering why RT is failing can they?