PC sales Suffer Biggest Slump in years

[HarryT]

No, I certainly see your point. I guess it doesn't bother me because these days I very rarely print anything.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Office Ribbon interface certainly takes a bit of learning, if you're familiar with the old Office UI, but once you're familiar with it, it is a lot more efficient, in that functions are collected together in logical groups.

Maybe so, but it takes much more space on screen as compared to a menu. I know the Ribbon can be folded, but I don't like that.

Maybe for some people the Ribbon is quicker to use, but it isn't for me. My eyesight is bad. The mass of buttons and images is overwhelming and it's hard to hit a specific target within it.

When using a menu, there are just 5-10 words on screen. After clicking one and the menu unfolds, I can "scroll" the selection down to the option I need and then click.

For me, this is a much cleaner way to work.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Office Ribbon interface certainly takes a bit of learning, if you're familiar with the old Office UI, but once you're familiar with it, it is a lot more efficient, in that functions are collected together in logical groups.

It has been forced on me shortly after it came out, and even today I am *very* annoyed when I have to use it. Even the newest incarnation of MSOffice, that came with my new notebook at work is not to my taste. And I have no problem learning new things - I have been using Linux at home (before it was FreeBSD) for a very long time and over the years I have used many various desktop environments and programs with quirky interfaces.
Once upon a time I was big evangelist for the first version of MS Word for Windows. Great, great program, with its OLE features, customizable toolbars and unified user interface.

I am a power-user and a local alpha-geek, so I have been functioning as a support for Windows, Linux, Unix, Office, AutoCAD, Vim, and other programs at work for many years. So all the interesting problems end up on my unofficial support line sooner or later. I have even been teaching AutoCAD, MSOffice and other specialized programs, such as HMI development tools.
I still strongly dislike Ribbon. Among many other shortcomings it takes too much screen estate, (especially in the age of ever wider displays). In a few years they will be selling 25 inch displays that are 24.5 x 2 inches.

[taming]

I just bought a new desktop computer and was amazed by the low price on a very good Windows 8 model. It has 10GB of RAM, 1 TB drive, great AMD processor, separate 2 GB video card and many other features for $499 CAD. It joins a household with several other desktops, two laptops, and various tablets. When I need a desktop--I buy a desktop.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by kacir

In a few years they will be selling 25 inch displays that are 24.5 x 2 inches.

They would if they could. Not because wider is better, but because it's cheaper. You lose out on both pixels, and surface area.

Let's take a 24 inch 4:3 display, with a resolution of 1600:1200. Now, let's take a 24 inch 16:9 display, that's also 1600 pixels wide. 1600:900. Hmm. Less pixels.

The 24 inch 4:3 display will have this size:

A² + B² = C²
4² + 3² = C²
C = 5.

So, the screen will be 24 / 5 * 4 = 19.2 inch wide, and 24 / 5 * 3 = 14.4 inch high. Your screen surface will be 19.2 inch * 14.4 inch = 276.48 inch².

Now, take a 24 inch 16:9 widescreen:

A² + B² = C²
16² + 9² = C²
C = 18.358 (approx).

The size of the screen will be: 24 / 18.358 * 16 = 20.92 inch wide, and 11.77 inch high (approximately). The screen surface will be 20.92 inch * 11.77 inch = 246.23 inch².

There you have it. If a screen has a wider aspect ratio, while retaining the same diagonal and the same horizontal resolution, you will actually lose vertical pixels, and the surface of the screen will diminish. Therefore, a 24 inch 16:9 widescreen is (probably) cheaper to produce than a 24 inch 4:3 screen.

To retain what you had (surface, number of vertical pixels), the 16:9 widescreen actually needs to be BIGGER than the 4:3 standard screen.

The industry is already slowly starting to push 21:9 inch screens, that are even wider... so keeping the same diagonal, they'll have even less surface, and even less vertical pixels.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Office Ribbon interface certainly takes a bit of learning, if you're familiar with the old Office UI, but once you're familiar with it, it is a lot more efficient, in that functions are collected together in logical groups.

It might be for some, but I can't count the times I felt like putting my fist through the monitor when trying to find something in the ribbon. They should have given us the choice of interface, rather than forcing the new one down our throats.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

They would if they could. Not because wider is better, but because it's cheaper. You lose out on both pixels, and surface area.

You are preaching to the choir now ;-)

I have purchased a new 22 inch monitor. It has only little bit less viewing surface than my old 4:3 19 inch monitor. 19 inch monitor is actually almost an inch taller.
You do not need calculations, just insert your size here:
http://www.displaywars.com/19-inch-4x3-vs-22-inch-16x9

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by kacir

You are preaching to the choir now ;-)

Oh. Sorry

I have purchased a new 22 inch monitor. It has only little bit less viewing surface than my old 4:3 19 inch monitor. 19 inch monitor is actually almost an inch taller.
You do not need calculations, just insert your size here:
http://www.displaywars.com/19-inch-4x3-vs-22-inch-16x9

The confounded, newfangled interwebz! It makes people stupiderder. One should do this by hand

But still: I got it rihight! See, it paid off to go to high school

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

It might be for some, but I can't count the times I felt like putting my fist through the monitor when trying to find something in the ribbon. They should have given us the choice of interface, rather than forcing the new one down our throats.

That always happens with a new system or program.

It actually was a big relief when my wife decided to get a small Chromebook rather than a Win 8 ultrabook even though I was offering to find her a great one. Her home laptop with Win 7 seems perplexing enough when I am called to consult on it. Tantalizing close to XP but NOT!

At her office, she has a tec lady for the big Apple Desktops they went to about 4 years ago. So far, I have been able to hold the line on not allowing Apple in the house.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Billi

But in regard to efficiency it doesn't make any sense: now you have to do three clicks to print a page, beforehand it has been only one click. Do you really think this is quicker now? And this function is one of the most often used ones.

It used to be one of the most often used functions, at home I haven't printed anything in years and since many business users now have laptops it's dropping off there as well. I've never printed anything at all from a tablet come to think of it.

You used to print off a copy to give to someone else, now you just email it.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

It used to be one of the most often used functions, at home I haven't printed anything in years

It's also worth noting that it's the work of seconds to pin the print icon to the quick access toolbar at the top, and then you're back to single-click printing again.

Graham

[Billi]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

It used to be one of the most often used functions, at home I haven't printed anything in years and since many business users now have laptops it's dropping off there as well. I've never printed anything at all from a tablet come to think of it.

You used to print off a copy to give to someone else, now you just email it.

At home/for private use I mostly agree with you although I have to print something occasionally. At offices, well I don't claim to know how all offices around the world work, but in my experience there are still many pages printed out. We at least don't have the paperless office already.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Graham

It's also worth noting that it's the work of seconds to pin the print icon to the quick access toolbar at the top, and then you're back to single-click printing again.

Yes, that's possible, but the developers could have spared the hundreds of hours of programming to hide this icon.

[taming]

Originally Posted by Billi

But in regard to efficiency it doesn't make any sense: now you have to do three clicks to print a page, beforehand it has been only one click. Do you really think this is quicker now? And this function is one of the most often used ones.

I have a newer version of Office, perhaps, but I have the things I use most frequently, like print, email the document, cut, paste, etc on my quick access toolbar. That makes everything I use frequently one click away, rather than buried in a menu.

[HarryT]

I tend to use keyboard shortcuts - even quicker. Easier to type "Ctrl+V" rather than click a "Paste" button on a toolbar.