[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I may have been thinking too much of Win8 when I read that at first, I started thinking of having one OS installed from a universal ISO which runs on all devices... As long as the code builds on all platforms that does make more sense.

As mentioned, getting the code to build on all platforms is not easy.

One of the reasons the C language became popular was that Dennis Ritchie intended it to be relatively easy to port to a new machine. When C was mature enough for Unix to be rewritten in it from the version of assembler the earliest version had been written in, it became possible to bring it up on other machines at Bell Labs besides the DEC minicomputer on which it had been developed, and Unix began to spread.

But just because code was written in C was no guarantee of portability - the programmer had to understand what sort of code was portable, and what would only work on a particular architecture.

And while a universal ISO might be possible, I see limited use. For things like OSes, the OS is normally pre-installed on the device, and the usual use for an ISO is if you wish to change the OS to something else, or install another OS alongside the current one, like I did with Win7 and Ubuntu. OS upgrades are handled differently.

It doesn't really put me off either, at least in the sense that after installing a normal menu the rest of the UI is fine. But anything Metro is ugly to use on the desktop. I cannot speak for desktops on a Win8 tablet, but I can only imagine that it sounds better than it works.

There are all sorts of usability issues. A friend bought a Dell "All-in-one" PC with Win7 a while back - the sort of machine where everything is in the monitor. It came with a touch screen she didn't really want, but she needed a new machine right away and the touch screen model was available. She simply didn't have much actual use for a touch screen on a desktop machine.

That's a major area of difference between tablets and desktops. A touch screen is pretty much a requirement on a tablet, but what will you actually do with it on a desktop?

I still think there is no one-size-fits-all UI, and Google will fail.

I suspect you're right, but it will be curious to see how they fail.

I want to see a UI that has two completely different looks, one for desktop and one for Mobile.

I don't mind some similarity. The question is what elements can be common, and what will need to differ.

The Ubuntu phone claims to have this, I think that is the hype behind why anyone would want one. I think the idea was to have one UI that simplified itself in Mobile mode, and in Desktop expanded to have more point-and-click.

Ubuntu's Unity interface at least tries to scale to fit larger displays, but makes implicit assumptions about what it's running on. I have an older version of Ubuntu on an ancient notebook from 2005, and Unity isn't an option - it requires 3D graphics capability the notebook doesn't have, and won't run. (I use the Lxde window manager there.)

Although really Unity is far too mobile-y for me even in desktop mode, and for that reason alone I doubt it will have too much appeal.

One thing I haven't seen is how Unity works on a dual monitor setup. I don't have one - I don't have space for a second 23" monitor - so I have no idea how it adapts.

An old friend is a devoted Linux user, and mentioned having made his peace with Unity. After getting rid of stuff that offended his sensibilities, like the Amazon search button, he learned to make his way around and use it. He wanted to know enough about it to be able to help folks in the local Linux User Group who were trying to deal with it.

I have Unity as an option in Ubuntu on my desktop, along with Enlightenment, Gnome, Lxde and XFCE4, and play with it occasionally. At least some of the rough edges have been polished off and it is usable. XFCE4 is simply a better fit for the way I tend to work. I install things on panels, which auto-hide till moused over. I like an uncluttered screen with a minimum of desktop chrome.
______
Dennis