Windows 8 will be 'largely irrelevant' to traditional PC users: IDC

Summary: IDC’s top 10 system software predictions for 2012 are out. One of them casts doubt on Microsoft’s potential market for Windows 8 among traditional PC users.

It’s that time of year: The time when prognosticators get out their crystal balls and make predictions.

The researchers at IDC have just released to their clients their “Worldwide System Infrastructure Software 2012 Top 10 Predictions.” (Al Gillen Program VP, System Software, tweeted the list of ten on December 2.)

One of those predictions caught my eye: “Windows 8 Will Launch with Split Success.”

Windows 8 will be 'largely irrelevant' to traditional PC users: IDC | ZDNet

 

[Boris]

I think MS could make something out of Metro on the desktop by making it more a transparent layer on top of the desktop: something like launchpad on OSX. When combining the glass of aero and the tiles of metro MS could present a more logical and unified W8.
A kind of HUD would be a move in the right direction if you understand what I mean .

 

[ADRz]

I think MS could make something out of Metro on the desktop by making it more a transparent layer on top of the desktop: something like launchpad on OSX. When combining the glass of aero and the tiles of metro MS could present a more logical and unified W8.
A kind of HUD would be a move in the right direction if you understand what I mean .

Yes, I understand.

OSX's Launchpad is a desktop application that presents installed programs in an iOS kind of way for users who come to the Mac from the iOS. Most Mac users do not bother with it. You can easily achieve the same thing in Win7, no big deal.

The Start Screen is not OSX launchpad. I would have love it to be, but it is not. It is essentially another UI layer that runs specific type of applications (apps) that would be running on tablets or smartphones. Why MS thinks that I want to run these apps on my desktop is beyond me. The demands of desktop computing are totally different from the demands of tablets and desktops. It is absolutely beyond laughter to try to slap a non-windowing shell on top of Windows.

However, the hunger for expanding profits makes people do weird things.

 

[Vertex]

Hey ADRz, have you seen or tried this tutorial?

http://www.eightforums.com/tutorial...le-enable-metro-context-menu-windows-8-a.html

It makes you disable the Metro or enable it again via the context menu anytime, brings back our beloved Start Menu like on Windows 7 plus its also gets rid of the unwanted ribbon on Windows Explorer. The improved Task Manager also remains because there are hacks out there to turn off the Metro but they would disable the new task manager as well.


Perhaps with the Metro out of the way, you could test drive Windows 8 and feel its performance.

 

[ADRz]

Hey ADRz, have you seen or tried this tutorial?

http://www.eightforums.com/tutorial...le-enable-metro-context-menu-windows-8-a.html

It makes you disable the Metro or enable it again via the context menu anytime, brings back our beloved Start Menu like on Windows 7 plus its also gets rid of the unwanted ribbon on Windows Explorer. The improved Task Manager also remains because there are hacks out there to turn off the Metro but they would disable the new task manager as well.


Perhaps with the Metro out of the way, you could test drive Windows 8 and feel its performance.

Yes, I am quite aware of the workaround and I have test-driven Win8. There are some moderate improvements over Win7 and I would have np problem installing Win8 in my business' computers if the Start Screen was not an integral part, whatever the workaround (which does have problems, however). I do not want any penny to Microsoft for Win8, not until it is "fixed". I think that users should vote with their wallets because this is the only thing that corporations listen to.

 

[Vertex]

Yes, I am quite aware of the workaround and I have test-driven Win8. There are some moderate improvements over Win7 and I would have np problem installing Win8 in my business' computers if the Start Screen was not an integral part, whatever the workaround (which does have problems, however). I do not want any penny to Microsoft for Win8, not until it is "fixed". I think that users should vote with their wallets because this is the only thing that corporations listen to.

If I get myself a new netbook, I would run Windows 8 DVP or Beta over it and disable Metro almost instantly using that tutorial as it will probably work on the Beta as well.

Things I don't like on Windows 8 so far:

1. Metro UI thing on Start Menu.
2. Ribbon in Windows Explorer
3. That thing that locks your computer from booting non Windows OSs.

The other features so far are promising like the system reset and the Hyper V so I'm still standing to make a fair verdict of Windows 8. Those features are neat but matters more to us power users than average folks so unless there is some really big mojo that most people would be so happy about, I don't think Windows 8 would do a big hit like Windows 7. And hey, I like the native PDF reader too. I will have less reason to install Adobe on my machine.

 

[ADRz]

Yes, I am quite aware of the workaround and I have test-driven Win8. There are some moderate improvements over Win7 and I would have np problem installing Win8 in my business' computers if the Start Screen was not an integral part, whatever the workaround (which does have problems, however). I do not want any penny to Microsoft for Win8, not until it is "fixed". I think that users should vote with their wallets because this is the only thing that corporations listen to.

If I get myself a new netbook, I would run Windows 8 DVP or Beta over it and disable Metro almost instantly using that tutorial as it will probably work on the Beta as well.

Things I don't like on Windows 8 so far:

1. Metro UI thing on Start Menu.
2. Ribbon in Windows Explorer
3. That thing that locks your computer from booting non Windows OSs.

The other features so far are promising like the system reset and the Hyper V so I'm still standing to make a fair verdict of Windows 8. Those features are neat but matters more to us power users than average folks so unless there is some really big mojo that most people would be so happy about, I don't think Windows 8 would do a big hit like Windows 7. And hey, I like the native PDF reader too. I will have less reason to install Adobe on my machine.

Thanks for your thoughts. I have a similar assessment of the situation so far. The virtualization capability is interesting but not a must for me. However, it indicates that moving forward, MS may change the mode dramatically and it will provide support for existing apps through virtualization.

Disabling the Start Screen may create all kinds of problems, most of which are poorly understood at this time. Who knows what MS would devise. It may provide Windows Update only through an app of the Start Screen and many patches may require the Start Screen to be enabled. So, my guess is that if you want Windows 7, just stay with Windows 7. I have the feeling that most manufacturers would offer both options for a long time.

Finally, think of moving to OSX. Apple does not need the Start Screen to move users to its desktop OS. Thus, you may see robust changes there as Apple is trying to crack the enterprise while MS is pre-occupied with tablets. I think that this strategy is being hatched at Apple as we speak.

 

[Vertex]

Haha, I have Windows Update disabled on my Windows 7, I only install optional updates every few months. I like Windows 7 of course but there is always the thrill for me to move forwards so if there is a way for me to configure Windows 8 Beta to work more like Windows 7 but will still be able to use the improvements on memory usage and all the new features of course outside the Metro, then I'll try to work with Windows 8 Beta for a while. I've seen a guy on Youtube, disable Metro but when he tried to launch the Metro apps from Windows Explorer, they just failed to work since they needed the Metro to contain them so that they could be launched and used.

I don't have plans on moving to a Mac at this point. Its just expensive for me and I'm much more famliar with Windows. I never used a Mac. I am a Linux user, however. I have Linux Mint 9 dual booted with my Windows 7 so I'm against this thing that may come with Windows 8 that locks off your machine from booting any non Windows OS. Even if Windows 8 comes with a built in virtual machine, I want a totally separate Linux system I can use. About Metro, the ribbon on Windows Explorer, plus the thing that locks off booting non Windows systems from your machine, I'm gonna say I'm a PC and those were NOT my idea!!

My verdict on Micro$oft is that it seems they are more concerned on maximizing profits than perfecting technology. About Apple, well I don't use iPad or iPhones and I'm uncertain of what's gonna come up with them now that Steve Jobs is gone.

 

[Coke Robot]

I find it silly that some people think that Metro is ploy for cash. Ummm, I hate to break it to you, metro design from Microsoft has been around since 2006. This literally isn't new. The only new part of it is that it's come to the Desktop. I also find it silly that some knowingly expect Microsoft to demand 2 dollars for a metro weather app. First off, that's built in. There's no buying anything there. Even then, some obviously don't know what goes on in the WP7 Marketplace. Microsoft has an API in Windows Phone so users are notified to try that app before they buy it. Even then, developers have free apps out in the marketplace, just like there are freeware programs for whatever in Windows.

And I don't know if some understand, A PRODUCT CANNOT STAGNATE IN TERMS OF DESIGN. Have you looked at mac os? It literally looks that same as it did 10 years ago but with higher resolution. You know who buy macs? apple fanboys that are brainwashed into thinking apple products are the poo of God. Have you looked at the iphone? It literally looks that same as it did in 2006. Have you seen the dominance of mac? No, you don't. The average consumer isn't going to buy a 1,200 dollar product if they know it will literally look that way in 10 years, with very little change. Have you looked at Windows? It looks as much as it did in 95 but with higher resolution, better navigation, better stability, and transparent windows. That's what it is when you boil it down. A company WILL lose consumer interest in a product that will see no tangible changes. So yes, Windows 8 is a ploy for cash when it's put that way.

 

[Coke Robot]

Yes, for crying out loud, some people are judging a Windows operating system based solely off an undeveloped, developer preview build. It's not even done yet! Microsoft got the Start Screen pushed out for the DP so developers can get used to it. There's obviously much more to come. Microsoft showed off features that aren't in the DP during the BUILD conference a few months ago. We haven't used those features yet.

I mean, the concept of being able to see ALL of your installed programs and apps visually is great. I've installed Windows 7 multiple times and have configured Windows 7 installations and have always put every relevant program in the All Programs list of the start menu. That's sometimes in vain since I've had people tell me they've never used the start menu. Man, oh man, Microsoft wasn't kidding when they said people don't use it anymore! I've seen start menus that are a wild beast of folders and nothing is configured or moved around. The AVERAGE user doesn't do those sorts of things. They don't delete superfluous folders or move things around or change the size of the start menu so more is viewable. Simply saying the Start Screen is going to make Windows 8 a flop is one opinion out of millions. The average user might actually know what is installed on their hard drives now. Saying metro design is repugnant is one opinion out of millions that have already used products with metro design and love it for it's simplicity and visual appealing aspects. Just because there's a portion of Windows users that are power users that don't like metro doesn't mean that average user is going to dislike it for it "lack of customization." What's the need to customize the Start Screen? There's going to be color options, grouping options, pinning options, and potentially DPI options. But there's not going to be widgets that people really don't use. There will be apps for that that replace those widgets with something better.

Speaking of such, I don't ever see average users use desktop gadgets ever. Every install I do, I always install a system monitor gadget, put on the slideshow, weather, and an antiviruses' gadget. After some time and I do work on a particular installation, I always see most of them gone. Usually the weather gadget is left on there. That's probably why Microsoft isn't supporting the Live Gallery anymore.

Gee willakers you guys! :huh:

Let me take a specific opinion that you have raised here:

"I mean, the concept of being able to see ALL of your installed programs and apps visually is great."

You are surely kidding. You cannot do this with the desktop and the taskbar? What would have been the difficulty in attaching "app" icons on the desktop? The same as coding for this "Start Screen", most likely.

You are saying:

"Just because there's a portion of Windows users that are power users that don't like metro doesn't mean that average user is going to dislike it for it "lack of customization." What's the need to customize the Start Screen?"

Why does this "Start Screen" exist at all? It could have been a simple task enabled from the desktop, couldn't it? If one wanted to see their "Metro-style" apps, one could have clicked on an appropriate icon on the desktop to see them. Or they could have been pinned on the desktop. Microsoft simply does not want you to go to the desktop. Period. MS wants users to be conditioned to see the "Start Screen". It is only by leveraging its dominance in the desktop that it can hope to have users buy their tablets and phones. My feeling is that this strategy would not work and it would backfire.

MS is busy demolishing the desktop. You may not have noticed, but MS has already eradicated most of the desktop gadgets. Why have a desktop gadget that shows you the weather when you can have a weather app on the Start Screen for which MS would collect revenue from? Why are you falling for this transparent ploy?

The only reasons for the Start Screen is (a) Condition Users and (b) extract revenue from apps. I can understand why developers of apps may be interested in mining the desktop (I would have to, had I been a developer), but why would I be interested?

Hate to break it to you, some people don't realize that. Some people don't even care or use that function. Some people stay reverted to classic taskbar management with nothing pinned. Some people pin, some don't. From what I've seen, a lot don't. And even if they could, some don't have high resolution screens to allow massive amounts of pinning.

Desktop gadgets are gone. That's a fact. That in itself doesn't say Desktop is gone. Why have a weather app when I could just get weather gadget. Oh wait, I first have to go buy a copy of Windows 7, install it, activate it, and then place the built in weather gadget somewhere on my desktop. It's the same bloody argument. An app, or a gadget. Either way, they're both built in, and they're both getting revenue for Microsoft.

The reasons for the Start Screen is (a) remodel a 16 year old design of a product that definitely might see a loss of consumer interest due to touch devices (b) create a new platform for their developers to build upon that is consistent and can make the developers profit. Last I checked, a 70 percent cut from an app is much larger than a 30 percent cut. And last I checked, Microsoft will have a lower developer fee than apple.

 

[Coke Robot]

Man, oh man, Microsoft wasn't kidding when they said people don't use it anymore! I've seen start menus that are a wild beast of folders and nothing is configured or moved around. The AVERAGE user doesn't do those sorts of things. They don't delete superfluous folders or move things around or change the size of the start menu so more is viewable.

The average users don't do those things? I disagree. Surely, there are average users out there that have learned to tidy up the Start Menu and have learned to use it effectively like the ever useful search bar. Compare that to the Metro tiles, even uninstallers get pinned there as tile by default and are you sure that all "average" users out there would unpin and tidy those up? Plus the Start Menu takes much less space to display your apps than the Metro that takes the whole screen, interefering with your Desktop. I am not entirely against the Metro, I just don't want it merged with the Start Menu.

Speaking of such, I don't ever see average users use desktop gadgets ever. Every install I do, I always install a system monitor gadget, put on the slideshow, weather, and an antiviruses' gadget. After some time and I do work on a particular installation, I always see most of them gone. Usually the weather gadget is left on there. That's probably why Microsoft isn't supporting the Live Gallery anymore.

I have seen average users use the Desktop gadgets. I have seen them use the calendar, the clock and the picture slideshow. I myself use the clock, Black Calendar and the All CPU Meter which I believe is one of the most downloaded and used gadgets out there. Some users use an app called Rainmeter and its little gadgets as a replacement for the desktop gadgets and it makes the desktop very cool looking. Gadgets are still avialable on third party sites and highest rated ones are still displayed on the Windows Personalization Gallery so its not true that they are not being used at all.
I have included a screenshot of my desktop. As you can see, I put the shortcuts of many of my installed programs and games on a folder on the desktop and that makes it neat.


View attachment 2971

There are average users that know how to pin, but really, it's something that I've seen so underutilized, it's disgusting. There may be average users that tidy up their start menus, but I've yet to see one myself. The only aspect I've seen tidy is the recent programs list. The menu itself is abysmal.

But I do have to say, your screenshot looks like something that can be easily be pinned into the Start Screen. They're programs that you don't choose to have all over your desktop, and are one click away from being accessed. Hmm, sounds like what the Start Screen is all about...

 

[Coke Robot]

I'm sure that some employees of Microsoft are watching this forum. So they know our reactions.

If the current standing of the WDP would remain till the Beta, I think more people that are already haters of the Metro would further be upset and lose enthusiasm with Windows 8. To some people, they are going backwards with this thing. Going retro with Metro that is.

However, let us see what a "non-Metro" Windows 8 will perform. I am not yet giving it all a thumbs downs since the "non-Metro" Windows 8 does have advantages over Windows 7. We will know more in weeks to come.

If there are Microsoft employees here, they would be busy boosting Win8. Their paychecks depend on it. And they would not dare open their mouths in any meetings. They would not want to be labelled as "not team players". You underestimate the power of groupthink.

As I said in another thread, Microsoft may decide to make the Metro interface optional for the "Enterprise" or "Professional" version of Win8 where it may ask anywhere between $199 to $349 for a license. This again hinges on how they see the enterprise sales going. The decision to have the Metro-style "Start Screen" on without the capability of switching it off seems to have been "hard-coded" because of the announcements of the Microsoft App store. Microsoft is not going to start an app store for an interface that it intends to make optional and which most users would not choose to enable. In fact, during the App Store announcements, MS discussed about the possibility of allowing enterprises to distribute "company apps" by specific workarounds (they would not be visible to the public). So, I do not expect any changes in the beta. If you do, you are an optimist.

Microsoft may have a plan B. If there is resistance to Win8, it may come out with Win7 "Second Edition" where it may put in some of the Win8 improvements (minor as they are) and sell a few more licenses this way. Or it would simply continue selling Win7 licenses as it happened with WinXP. Distributors would allow users to select either Win8 or Win7 (and the money goes to MS anyway). From the purely commercial point of view, Microsoft is covered either way.

Where Microsoft may really get hurt is perception among power users. It would not notice at first. This would take some time to bite. When many, including me, abandon Windows for something else, this decision would only be noticed if through our efforts more and more average users start abandoning Windows. At some point, this may get to be a real threat. For example, the Vista debacle cost Microsoft somewhere between 3-5% of global market share. It still has a very high marketshare (just above 90%), but this loss had an effect. The failure of the Metro "Start Screen" may open the way for Apple in the enterprise. Who knows, it is difficult to tell.

In summary, Microsoft believes that the upside of new Start Screen is good and the downside (some grumbling power users) not that negative. So, do not expect any changes. I would be surprised if there are any.

If the app store is redundant to you, why use it? I've unpinned the Windows Store link on my Start Screen because I don't need to access it as of now. I haven't needed to use it even though that's what a feature of Windows 8 will be. If you don't want it, you can change it. Windows lets you do that. If you don't want to use metro apps, then don't. Microsoft isn't forcing you to. That's why you can pin other programs to the Screen as well. It's not just metro apps it's designed for. The Start Screen doesn't just work with touch, it works with Desktop users as well. Granted of course, there isn't much to change for it as of yet.

To think Windows 7 will be the last great operating system of Microsoft is such bull. There's a saying, and it goes, "A computer is only as smart as the person using it." It probably should go, "A computer is only as good as the person who knows how to use it to its max." I mean really? Just to dismiss 8 because of an interface change that will be able to be as pliable as the Desktop? Wow.

A power user in my eyes knows how to reap the full benefits of an operating system, so we'll see how that will go.

And I highly doubt average users will turn to apple, or to android for that matter. Some people actually know how to use an interface, some people actually don't reject an interface because it's too much change. But some people will reject an interface if it's unfamiliar. You don't see people jumping the Windows boat to mac because it's a system of complete differences. Keyboard shortcuts don't work, navigation is insane to adapt to. The reason why people use android and apple tablets is because a tablet doesn't have those know functionalities built in them. All you do is touch. That isn't an interface change people don't reject. That's what Windows 8 can offer, touch and familiarity in one product.

Windows 8 might see some people jumping boat, and there might be statistics saying that those people chose apple because it will never change. People jumped boat on vista because it showed that Microsoft will break the trust of users on releasing a product that doesn't work. vista didn't work, people left. If you look at the mac operating market share, it's near 9 percent. Windows 7 has been out for two years and brought people back to a new, working product that they're used to. In that time, the mac share went up. One reason might just be it's vista 2.0. All Microsoft did was make it work right. Another argument is that all that changed was the taskbar. It's still vista 2.0. I think you should remember the initial release of 7, that's what it was called, vista 2.0. Microsoft doesn't want to tinker with their product, why should consumers stay onto a product that seems like it will stagnate? Windows 8 will show every Windows user that cares that Microsoft is intentionally willing their reputation once more on a product redesign to show people they know where the times are. We're not in the times of having an ultimate desktop with tricked out gadgets or better window management, we're in times where the simple gesture of touch has dominated the field. If consumers see three products, an ipad, an android tablet, and a Windows tablet and they see the first two as iterations of modern times with better touch controls, and the last as a product that only will do great on a laptop or desktop, it says that Microsoft is far behind the times. I don't if you realize, Microsoft has generally been in the past a large innovator when it comes with technology and how people use it. People don't want a vista 3.0.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
Well said
Look at Linux for example -- it's INFINITELY customiseable --and although unless there's a bit of a geek in you most people will give up after possibly attempting one or two distributions.

The fact you can create a really powerful, very efficient, RELIABLE server for zero dollars / euros / roubles / pounds / kronur / zlotys or whatever will probably be lost on most people but to those who have perservered it's been definitely worth it.

If MS is opening up a more customiseable desktop to users and providing what the market seems to want -- a consistent interface so their laptop / tablet looks just like their mobile phone well what's wrong with that.

MS isn't going away any time soon -- it's surviving well in the "Post Gates" era -- but Apple without Steve Jobs is beginning to resemble a rudderless ship in a stormy sea.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Vertex]

@Coke Robot

Well, how's the Metro Start screen better when it too can get so many tiles of programs you don't use? Plus the uninstallers there also get pinned by default. I don't think the Metro start screen is an easier solution at all, plus the Metro apps are full screen which makes it so hard to multi task. It just made it so much harder and unappealing not to you but to me and many others. I see you are a fanboy of this Metro design, and a fanboy of tablets or other MS touch screens as well but you gotta understand that desktop users have a different view. I'm not against Windows 8 at all. I've listed the 3 things I don't want with it on an earlier post and other things about it are positive to me. I just can't bear my Start Menu taking over my whole screen.

I agree there are lots of Apple fanboys out there that think everything Mac is just great but there are also Windows supporters or lets say fanboys out there that think that changes made by Microsoft are always better for all people which if you consider the different needs and wants of people is not.

And I do not agree that our world is now dominated by touch. We'll get there someday but even on 2013 when Windows 8 is released, I don't think we're quite there yet. I still use a desktop with no touchscreen and I can see that most enterprises still use a desktop not tablets. If a number of average users and some power users as well see this Metro as an obstacle to ease usability, this might make them refuse to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. If you look at the poll on this forum, you'll see that the highest number of votes go to people who said they loved Windows 8 except for the Metro thing. Things can take some time to learn or get used to but some people just put this a reason not to move on but perhaps if you give them something that is easier for them to adjust to, I don't think they will be that resistant to change.

 

[ADRz]

@Coke Robot

Well, how's the Metro Start screen better when it too can get so many tiles of programs you don't use? Plus the uninstallers there also get pinned by default. I don't think the Metro start screen is an easier solution at all, plus the Metro apps are full screen which makes it so hard to multi task. It just made it so much harder and unappealing not to you but to me and many others. I see you are a fanboy of this Metro design, and a fanboy of tablets or other MS touch screens as well but you gotta understand that desktop users have a different view. I'm not against Windows 8 at all. I've listed the 3 things I don't want with it on an earlier post and other things about it are positive to me. I just can't bear my Start Menu taking over my whole screen.

I agree there are lots of Apple fanboys out there that think everything Mac is just great but there are also Windows supporters or lets say fanboys out there that think that changes made by Microsoft are always better for all people which if you consider the different needs and wants of people is not.

And I do not agree that our world is now dominated by touch. We'll get there someday but even on 2013 when Windows 8 is released, I don't think we're quite there yet. I still use a desktop with no touchscreen and I can see that most enterprises still use a desktop not tablets. If a number of average users and some power users as well see this Metro as an obstacle to ease usability, this might make them refuse to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. If you look at the poll on this forum, you'll see that the highest number of votes go to people who said they loved Windows 8 except for the Metro thing. Things can take some time to learn or get used to but some people just put this a reason not to move on but perhaps if you give them something that is easier for them to adjust to, I don't think they will be that resistant to change.

Vertex, I agree with you.

I have to say that Start Screen may be OK for tablets and Smartphones. These devices run only full screen apps, there is no windowing on tablets!!! However, the desktop (and laptops) are different beasts and require a different approach.

Listen, I would not be too upset about the advocacy of the Start Screen by various "fanboys" here. Many are looking gleefully at the possibility of selling their $2.99 apps to the untold millions of Windows users. So, you are going to get some flack here for stating the obvious but you need to understand that many who have used the Developers Preview are just that, developers. Anything negative about the Start Screen endangers their livelihood. They are bound to defend at all costs because all they can see are dollar signs.

I am sure that countless "developers" are busy coding weather apps which they intend to sell for $1.99 to $4.99 when previously, in Win7, you got all that for free with a desktop gadget and always had access to the desktop with a single click (the bottom right button). Microsoft has been busy eliminating all these to open the way for these "developers".

Microsoft's policy would be totally irrelevant soon. By the time there is a Win8 tablet, Android 4.0 and 5.0 tablets will be so dominating the field (especially with Amazon championing it), that the Windows tablets will be again marginal devices. Microsoft has a tough time dealing with this. Instead of making a great OS for desktops, laptops and ultrabooks, it is only thinking "tablets" and "smartphones".

How irrelevant the Microsoft approach is is highligthed by today's news. Apple is developing now fuel-cell laptops that would run for weeks without charge. As soon as these come out, the Windows laptop space would be devastated again trying to catch up to Apple, as it happened with the Mac Air. But this is what happens when one abandons the field that they were dominating to try to fight a losing battle in a field of the opponents choice.

 

[Coke Robot]

@Coke Robot

Well, how's the Metro Start screen better when it too can get so many tiles of programs you don't use? Plus the uninstallers there also get pinned by default. I don't think the Metro start screen is an easier solution at all, plus the Metro apps are full screen which makes it so hard to multi task. It just made it so much harder and unappealing not to you but to me and many others. I see you are a fanboy of this Metro design, and a fanboy of tablets or other MS touch screens as well but you gotta understand that desktop users have a different view. I'm not against Windows 8 at all. I've listed the 3 things I don't want with it on an earlier post and other things about it are positive to me. I just can't bear my Start Menu taking over my whole screen.

I agree there are lots of Apple fanboys out there that think everything Mac is just great but there are also Windows supporters or lets say fanboys out there that think that changes made by Microsoft are always better for all people which if you consider the different needs and wants of people is not.

And I do not agree that our world is now dominated by touch. We'll get there someday but even on 2013 when Windows 8 is released, I don't think we're quite there yet. I still use a desktop with no touchscreen and I can see that most enterprises still use a desktop not tablets. If a number of average users and some power users as well see this Metro as an obstacle to ease usability, this might make them refuse to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. If you look at the poll on this forum, you'll see that the highest number of votes go to people who said they loved Windows 8 except for the Metro thing. Things can take some time to learn or get used to but some people just put this a reason not to move on but perhaps if you give them something that is easier for them to adjust to, I don't think they will be that resistant to change.

How is the start menu any better? If a user has a screen full of tiled programs they don't use, and the uninstallers are right there, seems fairly obvious. When you install a program in 7, the uninstaller gets placed in a program folder by default unless one deletes it or moves it. I myself don't fine it difficult to multitask between Metro and Desktop. It takes a simple click on the left side of the screen.

If being a fanboy of metro design means it doesn't bother me and I can understand it, then ok, I am one. I am also a desktop user and have always championed for the desktop. I've always thought laptops were irrelevant for extreme usage and tablets were nothing more than a mobile platform for angry birds. Technology has changed and the software has to change along with it. I understand you view the Start Screen as a hindrance to multitasking, but you truly need to use every aspect of it to fully see whether or not it's terrible. I think there's great potential.


Two years ago, netbooks were quite popular and Windows 7 made them modern and usable. Laptops were regarded are just a portable, temporary use of computing. The ipad came out. Since then, netbooks are being phased out. Laptop technology has gone to the point of 6 hour usage on an i5 processor and a mobile NVIDIA graphics card. Enterprises are adopting the ipad for on the field work. The android tablets have tried to invade the touch market and are still failing compared to the ipad. Touch is becoming quite popular. Even though I won't admit it, the desktop might become less prevalent if things don't change. More and more people are buying laptops than before. Soon in the future, more and more people will be buying tablets. I see in 2012 and on, touch will be much more mainstream.

I use a desktop without a touch screen. I've always been a desktop user. I use it a lot for Windows 7 installations for laptops when I move chunks of data. I've even used 8 to do some of that. I see metro as a dual purpose interface with lots of potential. It either will be used primarily for touch users, maybe even by desktop users that want to use metro styled apps, or even just a visual start menu for others.

As you said, things can take some time to learn or get used to.

 

[Coke Robot]

@Coke Robot

Well, how's the Metro Start screen better when it too can get so many tiles of programs you don't use? Plus the uninstallers there also get pinned by default. I don't think the Metro start screen is an easier solution at all, plus the Metro apps are full screen which makes it so hard to multi task. It just made it so much harder and unappealing not to you but to me and many others. I see you are a fanboy of this Metro design, and a fanboy of tablets or other MS touch screens as well but you gotta understand that desktop users have a different view. I'm not against Windows 8 at all. I've listed the 3 things I don't want with it on an earlier post and other things about it are positive to me. I just can't bear my Start Menu taking over my whole screen.

I agree there are lots of Apple fanboys out there that think everything Mac is just great but there are also Windows supporters or lets say fanboys out there that think that changes made by Microsoft are always better for all people which if you consider the different needs and wants of people is not.

And I do not agree that our world is now dominated by touch. We'll get there someday but even on 2013 when Windows 8 is released, I don't think we're quite there yet. I still use a desktop with no touchscreen and I can see that most enterprises still use a desktop not tablets. If a number of average users and some power users as well see this Metro as an obstacle to ease usability, this might make them refuse to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8. If you look at the poll on this forum, you'll see that the highest number of votes go to people who said they loved Windows 8 except for the Metro thing. Things can take some time to learn or get used to but some people just put this a reason not to move on but perhaps if you give them something that is easier for them to adjust to, I don't think they will be that resistant to change.

Vertex, I agree with you.

I have to say that Start Screen may be OK for tablets and Smartphones. These devices run only full screen apps, there is no windowing on tablets!!! However, the desktop (and laptops) are different beasts and require a different approach.

Listen, I would not be too upset about the advocacy of the Start Screen by various "fanboys" here. Many are looking gleefully at the possibility of selling their $2.99 apps to the untold millions of Windows users. So, you are going to get some flack here for stating the obvious but you need to understand that many who have used the Developers Preview are just that, developers. Anything negative about the Start Screen endangers their livelihood. They are bound to defend at all costs because all they can see are dollar signs.

I am sure that countless "developers" are busy coding weather apps which they intend to sell for $1.99 to $4.99 when previously, in Win7, you got all that for free with a desktop gadget and always had access to the desktop with a single click (the bottom right button). Microsoft has been busy eliminating all these to open the way for these "developers".

Microsoft's policy would be totally irrelevant soon. By the time there is a Win8 tablet, Android 4.0 and 5.0 tablets will be so dominating the field (especially with Amazon championing it), that the Windows tablets will be again marginal devices. Microsoft has a tough time dealing with this. Instead of making a great OS for desktops, laptops and ultrabooks, it is only thinking "tablets" and "smartphones".

How irrelevant the Microsoft approach is is highligthed by today's news. Apple is developing now fuel-cell laptops that would run for weeks without charge. As soon as these come out, the Windows laptop space would be devastated again trying to catch up to Apple, as it happened with the Mac Air. But this is what happens when one abandons the field that they were dominating to try to fight a losing battle in a field of the opponents choice.

Wow. Weather apps? Really? That's all you see for metro apps? Gee.....

You get a weather app free in Windows 8.

HA! android tablets dominating! They haven't been able to make a dent in the ipad for years, 4 major updates haven't done jack. android is a flailing interface for tablets that manufacturers would rather drop and forget about. They're bleeding those manufactures dry over a me too device. They'd rather be using a Windows product.

Even then, I've looked at the android 4 update, looks a lot like google thieving product design once more, not from apple, but from the Windows Phone this time.

I'm pretty sure my argument falls on deaf ears when it comes to people blinded by the fact that people are buying tablets more than they did ever and just having Microsoft focus just on desktops is a declaration of bankruptcy.

 

[ADRz]

Wow. Weather apps? Really? That's all you see for metro apps? Gee.....

You get a weather app free in Windows 8.

HA! android tablets dominating! They haven't been able to make a dent in the ipad for years, 4 major updates haven't done jack. android is a flailing interface for tablets that manufacturers would rather drop and forget about. They're bleeding those manufactures dry over a me too device. They'd rather be using a Windows product.

Even then, I've looked at the android 4 update, looks a lot like google thieving product design once more, not from apple, but from the Windows Phone this time.

I'm pretty sure my argument falls on deaf ears when it comes to people blinded by the fact that people are buying tablets more than they did ever and just having Microsoft focus just on desktops is a declaration of bankruptcy.

Let's clear up the air here:

The first generation of Android tablets were unable to crack the iPad dominance because they did not offer a compelling ecosystem and because they were as or even more expensive than the iPad. There was no music or movie store and Netflix did not even run on Android. However, this has changed dramatically with the release of Amazon's Kindle Fire and with the Nook Color. Netflix also released a perfect app for Android. Google has created a music and movie store and there are even two app stores for Android with hundreds of thousands of apps (Google and Amazon). There is no way of Microsoft matching any of this. In addition, as you said it, Android 4.0 incorporates a lot of the good ideas of WP7 and then some. Let's face it, Microsoft is out of this game.

My prediction: (a) the Microsoft ARM tablets, lacking any kind of ecosystem, would disappear very quickly, if they appear at all; (b) Microsoft Intel tablets would be a more expensive proposition and they would be positioned for the enterprise for content that requires somebody to run Windows applications. Both of these would be marginal players, at best.

Now, you seem to be a proponent of the Start Screen although you cannot even justify the additional clicks. I think that it takes all kinds. Not all change is good. I can mention many "advances" in OSs that did not turn out to be advances and many actually led to the demise of said OS. We can all learn new things but these new things have to have some kind of utility. I have no problem utilizing a Metro-style Start Screen if it provided any kind of an advantage to me. You fail to articulate what that advantage maybe. I have been reading your posts and I cannot figure out what you are talking about. How is the comment for uninstallers even relevant? One can get access to all uninstallers through the control panel. So, I cannot even understand your comments.

The only reason for the existence of the Start Screen on the desktop and laptop versions of Win8 is:
(a) Condition users to the Metro-style interface so that they can go out and buy Windows tablets and smartphones
(b) Making money for Microsoft by selling stupid little apps to millions of users for something that they were getting free so far!!!

In other words, it is just a marketing devise.

Now, how can you even reconcile having another UI layer on Windows running full screen apps only in a windowing OS??? Come again??

 

[Vertex]

How is the start menu any better? If a user has a screen full of tiled programs they don't use, and the uninstallers are right there, seems fairly obvious. When you install a program in 7, the uninstaller gets placed in a program folder by default unless one deletes it or moves it. I myself don't fine it difficult to multitask between Metro and Desktop. It takes a simple click on the left side of the screen.

If being a fanboy of metro design means it doesn't bother me and I can understand it, then ok, I am one. I am also a desktop user and have always championed for the desktop. I've always thought laptops were irrelevant for extreme usage and tablets were nothing more than a mobile platform for angry birds. Technology has changed and the software has to change along with it. I understand you view the Start Screen as a hindrance to multitasking, but you truly need to use every aspect of it to fully see whether or not it's terrible. I think there's great potential.


Two years ago, netbooks were quite popular and Windows 7 made them modern and usable. Laptops were regarded are just a portable, temporary use of computing. The ipad came out. Since then, netbooks are being phased out. Laptop technology has gone to the point of 6 hour usage on an i5 processor and a mobile NVIDIA graphics card. Enterprises are adopting the ipad for on the field work. The android tablets have tried to invade the touch market and are still failing compared to the ipad. Touch is becoming quite popular. Even though I won't admit it, the desktop might become less prevalent if things don't change. More and more people are buying laptops than before. Soon in the future, more and more people will be buying tablets. I see in 2012 and on, touch will be much more mainstream.

I use a desktop without a touch screen. I've always been a desktop user. I use it a lot for Windows 7 installations for laptops when I move chunks of data. I've even used 8 to do some of that. I see metro as a dual purpose interface with lots of potential. It either will be used primarily for touch users, maybe even by desktop users that want to use metro styled apps, or even just a visual start menu for others.

As you said, things can take some time to learn or get used to.

The Start Menu is better for me because it doesn't take over the whole screen as simple as that. I want to able to launch apps without having this whole Metro thing take over my whole screen that it hinders me from seeing what's going on with my windowed apps that are displayed on my desktop workspace. I don't want the weather app taking over the whole screen either if a desktop gadget that isnt big enough to hinder everything else can do that for me as I do not require so much animations and space to get the weather info I want. That would'nt be so hard to understand. People like you who love this design think it has great potential and I respect that but for people who share the same views as me, its a hindrance.

If I owned a netbook, it gets even harder for me since it has a small screen. I did not like the iPad because I can't multitask with it and even the onscreen keyboards takes space when I felt I can do more on a netbook with a real keyboard that runs Windows 7 in it, rock on. If I'm a gamer, I would prefer a desktop over netbooks or tablets or phones because they had more power and a bigger display to view online or FPS games like Call of Duty that I love, not just Angry Birds. I still prefer my desktop for home use because its hardware components are easier to find on stores around unlike those in netbooks, laptops and of course tablets.

I think tablets are not that close yet in dominating the coputing world. In my place, very few people have one and its expensive. Its still dominated by desktops, laptops and netbooks. In 5-10 years, maybe that would be the right time to say that tablets are very popular.

 

[Coke Robot]

How is the start menu any better? If a user has a screen full of tiled programs they don't use, and the uninstallers are right there, seems fairly obvious. When you install a program in 7, the uninstaller gets placed in a program folder by default unless one deletes it or moves it. I myself don't fine it difficult to multitask between Metro and Desktop. It takes a simple click on the left side of the screen.

If being a fanboy of metro design means it doesn't bother me and I can understand it, then ok, I am one. I am also a desktop user and have always championed for the desktop. I've always thought laptops were irrelevant for extreme usage and tablets were nothing more than a mobile platform for angry birds. Technology has changed and the software has to change along with it. I understand you view the Start Screen as a hindrance to multitasking, but you truly need to use every aspect of it to fully see whether or not it's terrible. I think there's great potential.


Two years ago, netbooks were quite popular and Windows 7 made them modern and usable. Laptops were regarded are just a portable, temporary use of computing. The ipad came out. Since then, netbooks are being phased out. Laptop technology has gone to the point of 6 hour usage on an i5 processor and a mobile NVIDIA graphics card. Enterprises are adopting the ipad for on the field work. The android tablets have tried to invade the touch market and are still failing compared to the ipad. Touch is becoming quite popular. Even though I won't admit it, the desktop might become less prevalent if things don't change. More and more people are buying laptops than before. Soon in the future, more and more people will be buying tablets. I see in 2012 and on, touch will be much more mainstream.

I use a desktop without a touch screen. I've always been a desktop user. I use it a lot for Windows 7 installations for laptops when I move chunks of data. I've even used 8 to do some of that. I see metro as a dual purpose interface with lots of potential. It either will be used primarily for touch users, maybe even by desktop users that want to use metro styled apps, or even just a visual start menu for others.

As you said, things can take some time to learn or get used to.

The Start Menu is better for me because it doesn't take over the whole screen as simple as that. I want to able to launch apps without having this whole Metro thing take over my whole screen that it hinders me from seeing what's going on with my windowed apps that are displayed on my desktop workspace. I don't want the weather app taking over the whole screen either if a desktop gadget that isnt big enough to hinder everything else can do that for me as I do not require so much animations and space to get the weather info I want. That would'nt be so hard to understand. People like you who love this design think it has great potential and I respect that but for people who share the same views as me, its a hindrance.

If I owned a netbook, it gets even harder for me since it has a small screen. I did not like the iPad because I can't multitask with it and even the onscreen keyboards takes space when I felt I can do more on a netbook with a real keyboard that runs Windows 7 in it, rock on. If I'm a gamer, I would prefer a desktop over netbooks or tablets or phones because they had more power and a bigger display to view online or FPS games like Call of Duty that I love, not just Angry Birds. I still prefer my desktop for home use because its hardware components are easier to find on stores around unlike those in netbooks, laptops and of course tablets.

I think tablets are not that close yet in dominating the coputing world. In my place, very few people have one and its expensive. Its still dominated by desktops, laptops and netbooks. In 5-10 years, maybe that would be the right time to say that tablets are very popular.

If that's your choice, ok then. If that works for you, that works for you.

I too think desktops are great. I'd rather rebuild my case and build a new system myself than buy a generic styled case with just adequate hardware, in fact, that's what I'm currently in the process of doing. I'm just waiting for the newer AMD APUs to come out.

Tablets aren't there in just yet in the main stream, but it's creeping there. Who know, Windows 8 might end up being that spark that kicks off the touch mainstream.

On a side note, one doesn't need to launch the weather app over and over again to get weather info. Some metro apps are design for live updates. It's a brilliant feature of the WP7, find information at a glance, and be done with it.

 

[Coke Robot]

Wow. Weather apps? Really? That's all you see for metro apps? Gee.....

You get a weather app free in Windows 8.

HA! android tablets dominating! They haven't been able to make a dent in the ipad for years, 4 major updates haven't done jack. android is a flailing interface for tablets that manufacturers would rather drop and forget about. They're bleeding those manufactures dry over a me too device. They'd rather be using a Windows product.

Even then, I've looked at the android 4 update, looks a lot like google thieving product design once more, not from apple, but from the Windows Phone this time.

I'm pretty sure my argument falls on deaf ears when it comes to people blinded by the fact that people are buying tablets more than they did ever and just having Microsoft focus just on desktops is a declaration of bankruptcy.

Let's clear up the air here:

The first generation of Android tablets were unable to crack the iPad dominance because they did not offer a compelling ecosystem and because they were as or even more expensive than the iPad. There was no music or movie store and Netflix did not even run on Android. However, this has changed dramatically with the release of Amazon's Kindle Fire and with the Nook Color. Netflix also released a perfect app for Android. Google has created a music and movie store and there are even two app stores for Android with hundreds of thousands of apps (Google and Amazon). There is no way of Microsoft matching any of this. In addition, as you said it, Android 4.0 incorporates a lot of the good ideas of WP7 and then some. Let's face it, Microsoft is out of this game.

My prediction: (a) the Microsoft ARM tablets, lacking any kind of ecosystem, would disappear very quickly, if they appear at all; (b) Microsoft Intel tablets would be a more expensive proposition and they would be positioned for the enterprise for content that requires somebody to run Windows applications. Both of these would be marginal players, at best.

Now, you seem to be a proponent of the Start Screen although you cannot even justify the additional clicks. I think that it takes all kinds. Not all change is good. I can mention many "advances" in OSs that did not turn out to be advances and many actually led to the demise of said OS. We can all learn new things but these new things have to have some kind of utility. I have no problem utilizing a Metro-style Start Screen if it provided any kind of an advantage to me. You fail to articulate what that advantage maybe. I have been reading your posts and I cannot figure out what you are talking about. How is the comment for uninstallers even relevant? One can get access to all uninstallers through the control panel. So, I cannot even understand your comments.

The only reason for the existence of the Start Screen on the desktop and laptop versions of Win8 is:
(a) Condition users to the Metro-style interface so that they can go out and buy Windows tablets and smartphones
(b) Making money for Microsoft by selling stupid little apps to millions of users for something that they were getting free so far!!!

In other words, it is just a marketing devise.

Now, how can you even reconcile having another UI layer on Windows running full screen apps only in a windowing OS??? Come again??

True, android now has hundreds and thousands of apps. Two app stores? Really, one isn't enough? True, Microsoft can't match that, but then again, they're not hosting an app store unregulated. android has the uncertainty of not knowing if certain apps aren't malware or spyware. They've been incidences of such just on the phones. But really, the argument goes to back to do people really need hundreds upon thousands of apps? I mean, above the productivity, utility, and info apps, the rest are just games and time wasters. But android in general incorporates a lot of what a jailbroken iphone would be.

Intel has been working on ARM and x86 chips for tablets, along with NVIDIA's Tegra chip, and I'm sure AMD is working hard as well, all for Windows 8 tablets.

I can justify the click. One simple click on the left hand side of the screen can put you right back into an app. If one has multiple apps running, one can drag the mouse cursor to the left side and scroll through the Live previews of the apps, and then click. There's not much justification needed, it's like justifying why you need to click on IE or Firefox or an Office program to go back to using it. If you have programs windowed, you simply click on the title bar.

One can access uninstallers from the program folder in the All Programs list in the start menu. One can go to the Control Panel. But usually, an average user doesn't know what to uninstall. What's in the installed programs list in the Control Panel includes drivers as well. Uninstalling those can cause problems obviously. I'll be speaking in a hypothetical future sense since the DP of 8 doesn't have this, but will be in the beta. A user can locate a program from the Group in the Start Screen, easily and visually see the program, the help documents and the uninstaller. If they don't know what that program is, or don't use it, from the Start Screen they can access the program's uninstaller right there and be done with it. Does that help for relevance?

The advantage of the Start Screen is not only the visual ability to see what one has installed without going through folders and folders in a large menu, but having internet links pinned, live updating apps displaying new information, and other apps that a user might want. From what everyone that has used the DP of 8, the apps that are installed are only just glimpses of what a metro app can be. Those apps were actually designed and coded by interns that Microsoft had during the process, just interns. There are only a couple dozen or less apps to show what metro apps can be. Speaking of such, Microsoft has shown what a metro styled Desktop program can be, the Zune Software. That's the most metro styled program ever. It probably can be made into a metro app. A media player can be a metro app. Social networking can be a metro app. Even Office probably will have metro apps. They're not just simple little trinkets that take up a whole screen. That's what makes the Start Screen have such potential, it's a new platform based of an existing one that will allow developers to do what they please with a full screen, but for once, these apps will have the common metro design thread throughout them.

But honestly, the desktop gadgets of Windows 7 technically aren't free, you pay for the license for 7 first. Some of the gadgets have been translated into apps for 8. They're still there, but the license fee.

How can you reconcile having to watch movies in full screen or games in full screen in a windowing OS?