Microsoft to shake-up Windows 8 Start screen

Microsoft to shake-up Windows 8 Start screen

Microsoft will make changes to the Windows 8 Start screen based on user feedback, according to a company executive.Speaking to PC Pro in London today, the company's general manager of platform strategy, Tim O'Brien, suggested next month's Windows 8 beta will make amendments to the divisive Start screen menu.The Windows 8 Start screen currently defaults to the new, tile-based Metro interface. More controversially, when users click on the Start button in the tradtional Windows desktop, they are immediately thrown back to the Metro screen.[FONT=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif][/FONT]
O'Brien said Microsoft will react to the feedback received on the Building Windows 8 blog, which devoted a lengthy post to the Start screen in October last year. "Some of the changes you'll see on the Start screen are based on feedback from developers on that blog," O'Brien explained.

Windows chief Steven Sinofsky admitted on the blog last year that forcing Windows 8 users to run the touchscreen-oriented Metro - irrespective of whether they're using a tablet, laptop or desktop PC - had angered some early testers."We've seen some small amount of visceral feedback focused on 'choice' or 'disable' — a natural reaction to change, but perhaps not the best way to have a dialog leading to a new product," Sinofsky wrote.

Microsoft then spent the rest of the lengthy post justifying the decision to apply Metro by default, but promised modifications such as increasing the number of tiles displayed on larger screens, and a redesigned Apps screen that makes it easier to scan through long lists of installed apps.

O'Brien couldn't confirm what features will be tweaked ahead of the beta, which is due to be released at the end of next month.​

Full article Available here >> ​

Microsoft to shake-up Windows 8 Start screen | News | PC Pro

 

[Coke Robot]

It's what I've said once before, most people don't like the Start Screen because it's change. It's a different and easier way to do the same thing that has been done for years.

Just because you repeat yourself doesn't mean you're correct.

1.) When someone says, "I don't like it", unless they give a specific reason after that, you can't assume what you just did. You're just projecting. If people didn't like change as much as you think, the world wouldn't have adapted to smart phones. I mean, who the hell needs a phone to do anything except make calls? And digital cameras? Gee, who's got a grudge against silver halide salt crystals? Why doesn't everyone demand prop planes instead of jets? Why aren't we clamoring for big boxy televisions and more stairs instead of elevators? Your reasoning here is terrible. It's got nothing to do with some abstract notion of change - and as much as people tell you this, you still ignore it. I don't know why you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against people who don't like Windows 8 as much as you. I don't disparage you for loving it. Why would I care? I'm glad you love it. I've never read anyone who insists you not like Windows 8, or that you're an idiot for doing so. Maybe they're out there, but if they are they are rare and they are idiots. Why do you insist the anti-Metro folks have inferior motives to you?

2.) You continue to ignore the reams of practical criticism from people who disagree with you. You say Metro makes everything easier? I don't think it's easier to get things done at all. Goodness, seems we have a disagreement here. Is it because you like change more than I do? Is it because I'm stupid? Is it because I can't adapt? Or is it because Metro is nothing more than a PITA to me? I'll give you a hint, Coke: Occam's razor. Metro is in the way of everything I want to do. Maybe you like a nice little box for the weather staring at you first thing when you turn on your computer. Or maybe it's some other app. I don't give a poop about apps on a desktop. A phone or tablet is a different story. App away on those. But there is no photo app more powerful than the full version of Photoshop. Or Word. Or Excel. Or most games. Or a DAW. On and on. Oh, but you can put that stuff on the Metro screen. Gee, what forward thinking. Why do I need Metro for that? Because it's different? Because it's change? That's your big reason? You haven't really replaced the Start button at all. You've just blown it up to the size of the entire screen.

We're here, six years after vista, and we're still using an OS that acts and looks much like vista.

No, here we are three decades later and MS and Mac are still using pretty much the same OS concept - move mouse, click a window. Wonder why it's been that long? Maybe because it's worked? If someone can think of something better than what these two companies have done, fine. But the reasons for it have to be better than the ones you give.

Why, after a good hundred years after the internal combustion engine, are we looking for something else to do the same thing? Sure, the engine has worked in the past, and is working now, and can be improved upon in the future to an extent. Yet, we're here in a time where all sorts of people are thinking of and building new and different and innovative ways to go from point A to point B without fossil fuels. Is it that needs are different now? Is it that people are moving away from large vehicles that use gallons of gas to smaller ones? Do we just want cleaner environments? Or maybe after doing the same thing for a 100 years and having infrastructure built for a gas powered car, we just simply want to use something else that isn't of archaic technology of a century ago?

Sure, Microsoft has been designing operating systems that are windowed and have menus and have mouse pointers that have worked, but that isn't where technology and input will be 10 years from now. Windows 8 is bringing two new inputs into play, touch and gesture, two nature human ways to interact with a surrounding environment.

Here's going out on a limb, racism. There are people that don't like someone because they look different and act different than them. The natural human response is to not like that person just because they're different than you. The same applies to something that is totally different than what is around. Like the Windows Phone 7, some people adore it, some people don't like it. The people I've come across that don't like it don't actually give a reason, they just don't like it because it's too different. We're so inept to seeing grids of icons and a covered up picture background that we think the only way to be productive and connect with people is through dozens of apps. When a phone that is designed to be simpler, easier, and has a better way to connect with your people, some don't like it.

The same goes for Windows 8, some don't like it just because. Some don't like it because it's difficult to use when honestly, it's not, initially yes. I may pass off that I have chip on my shoulder and that's because I'm starting to think people honestly have a superficial view of what an operating system is. I'm getting a little ticked that people are wanting a metro shut off button included to keep the course of technology limited to a start menu, taskbar, and a desktop background. I don't want to keep seeing Windows becoming just warmed over versions as the last because if it does, in the long run, Windows will be bombarded out by new comers to the OS game, like apple, android and google. I see Windows 8 as an innovation to show everyone that best is doing what they do best.

As for metro screens, you need to use a Windows Phone to understand it, it's a different design scheme unlike anyone else has. But you need to clarify, you need to use the Desktop to launch Photoshop, or Word, or Excel, or games?

 

[Vertex]

Coke, you yourself have said that you think Microsoft sucks in consumer marketing, if I remember it right and I do not believe they are the "best" by the end of the day and your view of what's "better" is different from we critics of the Metro see things are. And how sure are you that many app developers out there will make and improve Metro apps? Many developers out there would rather create and sell serious Desktop apps that are easier to manage and can do more things than the typical Metro apps we've seen on the WDP and even on the screenshots of the coming Consumer Preview have not convinced me that there is anything significantly new of the design we've seen of Metro apps. No window controls still. And compare that to Android, they have already spread their roots and have thousands of apps and still growing and I think it would be very hard for Windows to compete with that. Perhaps if they add window controls at least, it wold be an advantage over Android apps. I'm using a desktop PC with a decent screen, not a tiny screen and if my resizable desktop app can do what a full screen Metro app can do, what is the point of using a Metro app? Perhaps on a smartphone, it would do more sense but I'm using a desktop. Hello a desktop.

If MS responds to criticism, I don't think they would "listen" very well or change the course of development significantly at all because as far as the screenshots can tell, its still the same design from the WDP. I am optimistic too and I hope they would make significant changes. The research done by MS is way too "legit"? How would that explain the tons of negative criticism Metro is still getting now? I am optimistic about something coming in my favor but as time passes with me seeing not what I expect, I get turned away.

 

[Coke Robot]

Coke, you yourself have said that you think Microsoft sucks in consumer marketing, if I remember it right and I do not believe they are the "best" by the end of the day and your view of what's "better" is different from we critics of the Metro see things are. And how sure are you that many app developers out there will make and improve Metro apps? Many developers out there would rather create and sell serious Desktop apps that are easier to manage and can do more things than the typical Metro apps we've seen on the WDP and even on the screenshots of the coming Consumer Preview have not convinced me that there is anything significantly new of the design we've seen of Metro apps. No window controls still. And compare that to Android, they have already spread their roots and have thousands of apps and still growing and I think it would be very hard for Windows to compete with that. Perhaps if they add window controls at least, it wold be an advantage over Android apps. I'm using a desktop PC with a decent screen, not a tiny screen and if my resizable desktop app can do what a full screen Metro app can do, what is the point of using a Metro app? Perhaps on a smartphone, it would do more sense but I'm using a desktop. Hello a desktop.

If MS responds to criticism, I don't think they would "listen" very well or change the course of development significantly at all because as far as the screenshots can tell, its still the same design from the WDP. I am optimistic too and I hope they would make significant changes. The research done by MS is way too "legit"? How would that explain the tons of negative criticism Metro is still getting now? I am optimistic about something coming in my favor but as time passes with me seeing not what I expect, I get turned away.

Yeah, I have said Microsoft sucks at consumer advertising. They've had to rely on their third party manufacturers and developers to do that, everything from Windows, Xbox, and partly now for Windows Phone. I look at it this way, Microsoft has thousands of developers from Windows Phone to Windows. Many a Windows Phone developer knows how to use metro design for their apps:large typography, simplicity, and vibrancy. A Windows developer knows how to use a larger screen in a desktop environment to make use of their programs. Considering there are, again, thousands of those developers, I'm pretty sure they would combine the two design thoughts together to make use of the Start Screen, Live Tiles, and full screen apps.

If I were to make money off a program or an app, I'd probably put my eggs into the app market. It's simple math, if i have an app that people like and is rather useful that costs 10 dollars. If I make that same app into a desktop program with more features that costs 100 dollars, where would more money be made? Considering that there could be a potential of at least 100 million users of Windows 8 in a year or two, my 10 dollar app would be where the money is made. Why? It's 10 dollars versus a 100 dollar program. Most people don't buy anti-virus protection because it's an additional expense. Most people don't buy the latest version of Microsoft Office. Why? They carry hefty price tags.

Hmm, from how I look at this, when you switch to a different app, the previous is suspended until you go back to it. On the desktop, you if you have two programs open, you minimize one which reduces some system resource usage. Then you switch to the other program and go back to the other one until you click on it on the taskbar. It seems to me it's a similar concept in different form. Windows 8 Consumer Preview will let you kill an app after you're done with it. So honestly, it really is a similar concept.

I use Windows 8 on my desktop every single day since September. It's a fairly good sized monitor attached to it, with a new one in line. There aren't apps right now to make full use of a desktop monitor, but that could change.

What is it about a metro app turns you off?

 

[Night Hawk]

I think the only way we are going to know one way or the other is once the beta is available for a good lookover to see just what MS has in mind. If it turns looking anything like the Preview i can imagine the sales for 7 will peak!

 

[Vertex]

Well we have systems with lots of RAM and really good processors now, Coke and having 20 opened Desktop apps would be of ease without having to suspend the rest and resource usage on some of these apps do lower if that app has been idle for a few minutes. With full screen Metro apps, I don't think most people would pay even 10 dollars for that if a Desktop app or even a desktop gadget which is more accustomed to them would be available for free download anyway. In fact many of the fancy paid apps out there have a free alternative somewhere. Remember we got thousands and thousands of free programs available for download. 100 dollar Desktop apps?? Well don't be exaggerated over there, apps that reach those prices are of professional office software or AV software suites. Microsoft has app developers and of course their company want them to works as team players and cooperate on what the company wants but I believe there are even more developers who don't work for Microsoft and these are the guys who would have mixed opinions and won't have MS force them what to do. In fact, I have not felt any uproar of so many developers rushing in to make Metro apps but time will tell.

What is it in Metro apps that turns me off? I'm pretty sure you are aware I don't like the Start Menu taking the whole screen, I can't live with full screen apps on a huge monitor that doesn't have window controls and I just can't multitask with it the way I do on Desktop apps. I have said that a number of times.

 

[pezzonovante]

SCIENTIFIC research is the be all and end all of anything. It's totally ridiculous to suggest that MOST people don't like Metro. It's just that those people tend to be more vocal. Microsoft's research has shown MOST people would benefit from Metro on the DESKTOP. That's why they will NEVER listen to those small number of Luddites no matter how vocal they are. As I said previously, with both Ubuntu and OS X going the exact same route, Luddites are going to have a very frustrating time in coming years.

And so far NOT ONE Metro hater on this thread has given any SPECIFIC evidence of how Metro hampers their productivity. It's the same old illogical rants.

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

Colonel Travis said:

No, here we are three decades later and MS and Mac are still using pretty much the same OS concept - move mouse, click a window. Wonder why it's been that long? Maybe because it's worked? If someone can think of something better than what these two companies have done, fine. But the reasons for it have to be better than the ones you give.

*Waves hand* I can, thought activated processing.

 

[Colonel Travis]

SCIENTIFIC research is the be all and end all of anything. It's totally ridiculous to suggest that MOST people don't like Metro. It's just that those people tend to be more vocal. Microsoft's research has shown MOST people would benefit from Metro on the DESKTOP. That's why they will NEVER listen to those small number of Luddites no matter how vocal they are. As I said previously, with both Ubuntu and OS X going the exact same route, Luddites are going to have a very frustrating time in coming years.

And so far NOT ONE Metro hater on this thread has given any SPECIFIC evidence of how Metro hampers their productivity. It's the same old illogical rants.

Your certificate of Master of Luddite Usage is in the mail. Maybe you could lay off the insults (or at least learn new ones) and use the logic you seem to demand from everyone else? How old are you?

Who said most people hated Metro? I didn't. I don't know how many people hate it and I don't care, just as much as I don't care how many love Metro. Why do you take this stuff so personally? Are you that thin-skinned about an OS? You can love your little Metro all day long.

I gave "SPECIFIC evidence" about why Metro hampers me, but since you can't or don't feel like reading, I'll give it again: I have no use for any Metro app on a desktop. Zero. Phones? I love apps. Tablets? I love apps. Desktops? No. I don't want a cute little box for my pictures on my start-up screen. I don't want a weather box. I don't want a @#$%! box for a store begging me to buy even more crap I don't want. No app is as powerful as the programs I use now on a desktop. Metro apps are useless for me <----- Did you get that part? Not you. Me. But that's not the important word. "Useless" is the important word. Everything in Metro is either wasting my time getting to the stuff I use, or just putting it in an order that's aesthetically different from my 7 desktop/start button. Otherwise, there is no real, practical, fundamental change. As much as you and Coke and anyone else can scream there's MAJOR CHANGE GOING ON HERE!, you're refusing to acknowledge how little there really is. Like I said, the start button isn't gone, it's just the size of the entire screen and it's open all day long. You like that? Awesome. It serves no use for me. It does nothing but get in my way. It's like MS is nailing on one OS on top of another OS. There is too little cohesiveness between the two. If they could merge them better, I might really like. Might even love it. I don't know. All I know is the garbage they produced. And I might like the current garbage more if the design didn't look like a 6-year-old put it together. Funny how two different people can think differently about the same thing? Wonder why that is. You may think Metro is beautiful and sophisticated. I think it looks like Fisher-Price. Again, that's just me. Not you. Me. Got it?

 

[Colonel Travis]

Here's going out on a limb, racism. There are people that don't like someone because they look different and act different than them. The natural human response is to not like that person just because they're different than you. The same applies to something that is totally different than what is around.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read from you. Seriously. I can't even believe you'd drop that bomb. You continue to ignore what everyone who disagrees with you says and instead shoehorn them into stupid little cages of ignorance like this, far, far away from the Land of Enlightenment where you are. No one who's arguing with you is leveling the charges against you that you do against them. Learn how to have a rational discussion.

 

[ADRz]

Why, after a good hundred years after the internal combustion engine, are we looking for something else to do the same thing? Sure, the engine has worked in the past, and is working now, and can be improved upon in the future to an extent. Yet, we're here in a time where all sorts of people are thinking of and building new and different and innovative ways to go from point A to point B without fossil fuels. Is it that needs are different now? Is it that people are moving away from large vehicles that use gallons of gas to smaller ones? Do we just want cleaner environments? Or maybe after doing the same thing for a 100 years and having infrastructure built for a gas powered car, we just simply want to use something else that isn't of archaic technology of a century ago?

This is the funniest thing that I have read for some time. Win8 is the "clean energy technology" of the computing era...LOL!!!

Sure, Microsoft has been designing operating systems that are windowed and have menus and have mouse pointers that have worked, but that isn't where technology and input will be 10 years from now. Windows 8 is bringing two new inputs into play, touch and gesture, two nature human ways to interact with a surrounding environment.

Well, touch and gesture are important in handheld devices. Touch has been part of interacting with phones since Graham Bell (nothing new here). There was touch in smartphones for ages...going back to almost the first devices. I fail to see the innovation here. But touch and gesture in non-handheld devices (desktops and laptops) is an idiocy!! Pure and simple. I sit at my desk and my screen (a 30-inch one) is about 2 - 3 feet away. Just let me know why would I want to exercise my shoulders touching it and gesticulating in front of it? Just try to do this and you would soon find out that the keyboard and the mouse are the fastest input methods in interacting with laptops and desktops.

Here's going out on a limb, racism. There are people that don't like someone because they look different and act different than them. The natural human response is to not like that person just because they're different than you. The same applies to something that is totally different than what is around. Like the Windows Phone 7, some people adore it, some people don't like it. The people I've come across that don't like it don't actually give a reason, they just don't like it because it's too different. We're so inept to seeing grids of icons and a covered up picture background that we think the only way to be productive and connect with people is through dozens of apps. When a phone that is designed to be simpler, easier, and has a better way to connect with your people, some don't like it.

You are so wrong here....First of all, "Metro" is quite old, there is nothing new about it. First, it was (and still is) in "Media Center"; then it showed up in Zune (for about 5 years or more) and has been in Windows Phone for about 2 years. So, it has been around. If people loved it, it would have been a winner. If Microsoft were certain that people would love it, it would have made it optional. In fact, Microsoft is not at all sure that people like Metro, so it has to shove it down their throats.

The same goes for Windows 8, some don't like it just because. Some don't like it because it's difficult to use when honestly, it's not, initially yes. I may pass off that I have chip on my shoulder and that's because I'm starting to think people honestly have a superficial view of what an operating system is. I'm getting a little ticked that people are wanting a metro shut off button included to keep the course of technology limited to a start menu, taskbar, and a desktop background. I don't want to keep seeing Windows becoming just warmed over versions as the last because if it does, in the long run, Windows will be bombarded out by new comers to the OS game, like apple, android and google. I see Windows 8 as an innovation to show everyone that best is doing what they do best.

This is really weird. Why are you annoyed that people want the choice not to run Metro? If you love it so much, use it. Take it to bed with you, we do not care. But why do you want others not to have choice??? What are you? A "Metro" Grand Inquisitor???? If you like it, all the power to you. In fact, if you think it is that "hot", give users a choice. If they love it as much as you do, they will enable it!! Actually, if you are afraid that Windows will be elbowed out by users, such tactics by Microsoft are bound to antagonize millions who are going to go to other OSs. Forcing a stupid interface down people's throats is not a winner, trust me. Personally, I will stay with Win7 and eventually I may migrate to MacOS or Android, running some Windows applications through virtual environments. Sorry, I do prefer a desktop OS, I have no use of mobile OS in my desktop. If MS gives me a choice, then I may stay with Windows.

As for metro screens, you need to use a Windows Phone to understand it, it's a different design scheme unlike anyone else has. But you need to clarify, you need to use the Desktop to launch Photoshop, or Word, or Excel, or games?

I personally dislike Metro and Windows Phone. I find that the interface is just too "scrolly" and there is nothing there that a user cannot do with Android widgets (along with a much more customizable interface).

 

[pezzonovante]

I gave "SPECIFIC evidence" about why Metro hampers me, but since you can't or don't feel like reading, I'll give it again: I have no use for any Metro app on a desktop. Zero. Phones? I love apps. Tablets? I love apps. Desktops? No. I don't want a cute little box for my pictures on my start-up screen. I don't want a weather box. I don't want a @#$%! box for a store begging me to buy even more crap I don't want. No app is as powerful as the programs I use now on a desktop. Metro apps are useless for me <----- Did you get that part? Not you. Me. But that's not the important word. "Useless" is the important word. Everything in Metro is either wasting my time getting to the stuff I use, or just putting it in an order that's aesthetically different from my 7 desktop/start button. Otherwise, there is no real, practical, fundamental change. As much as you and Coke and anyone else can scream there's MAJOR CHANGE GOING ON HERE!, you're refusing to acknowledge how little there really is. Like I said, the start button isn't gone, it's just the size of the entire screen and it's open all day long. You like that? Awesome. It serves no use for me. It does nothing but get in my way. It's like MS is nailing on one OS on top of another OS. There is too little cohesiveness between the two. If they could merge them better, I might really like. Might even love it. I don't know. All I know is the garbage they produced. And I might like the current garbage more if the design didn't look like a 6-year-old put it together. Funny how two different people can think differently about the same thing? Wonder why that is. You may think Metro is beautiful and sophisticated. I think it looks like Fisher-Price. Again, that's just me. Not you. Me. Got it?

I NEVER said you have to say you find Metro beautiful and gorgeous like I do. I'm well aware of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Personally I find the iPhone and Android UI fugly, crappy and designed by a brain-damaged retard. But obviously many people think the iPhone UI is the best thing ever. I have no problem with that -- just like I have no problem with your not finding Metro UI beautiful.

But my REAL point is usability and productivity which can be SCIENTIFICALLY and STATISTICALLY proved. What have you said as reasons behind your claim that Metro is not helpful?

I have no use for any Metro app on a desktop. Zero. Phones? I love apps. Tablets? I love apps. Desktops? No. I don't want a cute little box for my pictures on my start-up screen. I don't want a weather box. I don't want a @#$%! box for a store begging me to buy even more crap I don't want. No app is as powerful as the programs I use now on a desktop. Metro apps are useless for me

You said you have no use for Metro. But not ONCE have you said HOW Metro affects your productivity. By that I mean you haven't said how Metro UI makes you use more clicks or more time to achieve the same task.

You haven't given one example how the Metro Start Screen with big tiles are worse than the tiny desktop icons of Windows 7 -- not ONE example how that hampers your productivity or usability.

Does Metro make things more complicated for you? I would like to know how. But no one has produced any specific examples.

If your post was all about the aesthetics, then as I previously said, I have no problem with that view at all. But if you say Metro affects usability, I would expect some solid examples to back that up.

 

[Looey]

Say what you believe

I think the racism quote by coke robot is ugly. He/she implies people don't like someone who is different than themselves. That is the biggest load I've seen on the internet in a while.

People have a right not to like something. If using Metro bothers a computer user they should be able to say it without being trampled on and a Metro lover should be able to say that he likes it without being ridiculed. I do think good conversations about the pros and cons of Metro is a good thing for people to be able to make a purchasing decision. I personally don't like Metro. I can see a smart phone or tablet user liking it but on a desktop I don't like it. As for sitting at a desk and pushing buttons on a screen, no thanks. Those who like Metro including Microsoft will probably win out and I'll have to find some other way to process my information. It won't be using Metro though. The only reason Microsoft is in business today is because they caught on to the idea of windowing. I think Metro for the desktop is going backwards. I know it's hip to like Metro but I think Vista hate will be multiplied by a hundred for Metro. I also think if Microsoft is stubborn about Metro they will suffer a loss in sales. If they don't sell the OS or convert users to their way of thinking heads will roll. By the end of February Microsoft will show their hand and people can either embrace it or find other methods of computing.

 

[Colonel Travis]

But my REAL point is usability and productivity which can be SCIENTIFICALLY and STATISTICALLY proved.

Instead of using CAPS indiscriminately, link that evidence to Metro use, specifically. If you already have, I've missed it, sorry. Re-link it because I'd like to read what you're talking about so I can stop talking to you in generalities.

Does Metro make things more complicated for you?

In some ways it sure as hell does. Again, do you not read other threads in this place? Are you just coming to this debate right now?

1.) I suspect they'll change a big annoyance with the new release, nonetheless, when you add a program, you don't just get a cute little box for the executable - you get the uninstall box and every other annoying peripheral box associated with the program. PITA to clear that mess out, giant waste of my time.

1a.) Clearing out every stupid App box in the first place. I don't use any of that junk. It's the latest iteration of bloatware. Again, total waste of my time.

2.) No real Windows in Windows Metro. Not productive at all.

3.) Touch screen for desktop applications? You want to argue productivity with someone who works at a real desk at a real job doing real work? Or with someone who does non-work stuff at a real desk? In either case, reaching over the real desk to touch a screen instead of using a real mouse and real keyboard which are closer doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's the practical Luddite in me, I guess.

4.) Disabling Metro means what else is disabled in the rest of the OS? Another PITA as things stand now.

5.) Some (not all) complaints listed here that I'm too lazy to type out because you're too lazy to have even noticed it to begin with.

6. I don't like my files represented by Fisher-Price boxes. I prefer lists. On Windows 7 I don't use large icons for files, I don't use small icons. I don't use Tiles. I use "Details" because I'm more productive that way. I don't get that option in Metro. In fact, I don't get many options at all. I'm just told - do it this way. Screw you, I'd rather do it my own way, and I wouldn't force anyone else to do it my way. They can pick whatever the hell way they want.

For some reason you can't grasp any of this. The very type of dumb arguments you can't stand - the ones people like me are not making but you claim we are - are the ones you actually use. Do you even get that? No. You think we're the Luddites, when we're the ones who aren't falling in line for this utilitarian BS Microsoft is throwing at everyone. We're the ones who want to do things our own way and be creative - which is not the Metro way -and you lap that Metro stuff up, not even knowing you have less real control over your system than before. But you like to imagine you do because you can do stuff like change the freaking background color from green to whatever glorious hue you can think of.

 

[ADRz]

For some reason you can't grasp any of this. The very type of dumb arguments you can't stand - the ones people like me are not making but you claim we are - are the ones you actually use. Do you even get that? No. You think we're the Luddites, when we're the ones who aren't falling in line for this utilitarian BS Microsoft is throwing at everyone. We're the ones who want to do things our own way and be creative - which is not the Metro way -and you lap that Metro stuff up, not even knowing you have less real control over your system than before. But you like to imagine you do because you can do stuff like change the freaking background color from green to whatever glorious hue you can think of.

CT, let me first tell you that I agree with you 100%. I find it very annoying that the fans of Metro have the need to paint those that are opposed to this interface as "Luddites" or "technophobes". This is absolutely not true. In fact, most of the opposition to the Metro Start Menu is from power users, persons who are in the forefront of technology, not from Luddites or technophobes (who probably run Macs, anyway).

I keep pointing out that Metro is old, it is not new. The first time this interface appeared, it was in "Media Center". This remains the least used part of Windows, with only 0.1% of users ever bothering to use it. Then it appeared in Zune and we all know how well it did there. Then, for the last 2 years, it is in Windows Phone and it has not burned the charts in any way. So, it is silly to claim that it something new that technophobes would avoid.

The so-called scientific argument was one by Sinofski, the guy who leads the Win8 team, who analyzed telemetry data on the use of the Start Menu. However, this was hardly scientific (although some of the statistics made it look "scientific"). I can point out 10 different things that made this whole analysis totally worthless, but I would not even bother. He did not analyze the rest of the Windows interface (including the use of taskbar, etc). This was a cherry-picked argument.

I think that we all know why Microsoft is developing Win8 the way it does. Microsoft believes that the whole computing paradigm is going to migrate to a smartphone & tablet paradigm and that non-handhelds (desktops and laptops) would progressively disappear. They saw Apple partially merging iOS and OSX in Lion, and they got scared. In fact, in Lion, Apple simply provided a way to run iOS apps and allowed some customizable items to be used in "the iOS way" based on user preference. The user reception of Lion has been quite tepid. Most actually hated it. I do not think that there is anything wrong in allowing mobile apps to run in the desktop provided that they are windowed. The Apple approach seems about right. In fact, a number of companies would soon offer ways to run Android apps in the Win7 desktop (there is a number of beta programs out there). However, it is totally different to have a mobile OS take over a desktop machine. I find it laughable that now Microsoft is terming all desktop applications as "legacy apps".

Let's say we go away from desktop applications and develop touch-enabled apps. By the very nature of the touch interface, these are going to be simplified programs. A Metro-style Excel will have a very simplified menu structure and it would display only a quarter of the cells that are displayable at the same resolution in a non-handheld. Is this really the future? I hope not.

Microsoft has every reason to be concerned. I was in a recent meeting in which sales reps were strongly demanding iPads because using their laptops was "too much of a hassle". Well, this would be true in several occasions and computing will become more and more fragmented. It is unavoidable. Those who do not have a need for rich computing, will migrate to simpler machines. But offering the same OS in every device is not the answer. Microsoft could have offered tablets with Windows Phone 7 a year ago and it could have created a "tablet-oriented" version of Win8. Apple is keeping iOS and OSX separate. This is the correct way to go. Desktop (non-handheld) computing would be with us for ever. It may comprise a smaller part of the overall usage, but it would still be a huge component. I think that MS is doing a tragic mistake that it would cost it dearly. But only the future can tell.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Oh yeah - ADRz, thanks, I should have realized this is what the science argument was. I also had problems with it.

 

[pezzonovante]

Instead of using CAPS indiscriminately, link that evidence to Metro use, specifically. If you already have, I've missed it, sorry. Re-link it because I'd like to read what you're talking about so I can stop talking to you in generalities.

I would like to hear what problems you have with Microsoft's SCIENTIFIC arguments.

1.) I suspect they'll change a big annoyance with the new release, nonetheless, when you add a program, you don't just get a cute little box for the executable - you get the uninstall box and every other annoying peripheral box associated with the program. PITA to clear that mess out, giant waste of my time.

1a.) Clearing out every stupid App box in the first place. I don't use any of that junk. It's the latest iteration of bloatware. Again, total waste of my time.

First of all, you get the EXACT same thing with the fugly old Start Menu that you love. EVERY little unwanted piece of crap gets added there and bloats up the list. So, there's no way Metro is WORSE. Yes, this may not be IDEAL -- and I'm sure it will change in future builds. But again, it's not WORSE than the fugly old classic UI.
You think those preview apps and sample games will be there in the final release? Hell no. Only the basic Windows features will be on the Start Screen by default. The rest can be downloaded from the beautiful new Windows Store.

2.) No real Windows in Windows Metro. Not productive at all.

Have you used any complex Metro apps yet? How do you know it's not productive? Wait until Windows Store opens and complex apps start to appear. Only then can either you or I say if it's indeed less or more proudctive.

3.) Touch screen for desktop applications? You want to argue productivity with someone who works at a real desk at a real job doing real work? Or with someone who does non-work stuff at a real desk? In either case, reaching over the real desk to touch a screen instead of using a real mouse and real keyboard which are closer doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's the practical Luddite in me, I guess.

NO. Metro is NOT a touch UI. It is just AS productive with the mouse and keyboard as it is with touch. Microsoft has explained in detail how easy it is to navigate Metro with mouse and keyboard -- much more so than the fugly old classic UI.

4.) Disabling Metro means what else is disabled in the rest of the OS? Another PITA as things stand now.

Which brings us back to the original point why would you want to disable the beautiful and productive Metro UI in the first place?

5.) Some (not all) complaints listed here that I'm too lazy to type out because you're too lazy to have even noticed it to begin with.

Good on you for not typing them out, because there is not ONE logical point in there. For example, the pathetic clown who wrote that article doesn't like the ribbon, but explains no reason why. Just says:

Many will recall the ire Microsoft stirred up when it implemented its
ribbon-based UI across its Office suite a few years back. Now the dreaded
UI-sore has found its way into Windows Explorer, one of the last vestiges of the
old, familiar way. Like a nasty parasite, I just want to be rid of it.

Ha ha ha ha ha! What a logical and imaginative argument indeed.

6. I don't like my files represented by Fisher-Price boxes. I prefer lists. On Windows 7 I don't use large icons for files, I don't use small icons. I don't use Tiles. I use "Details" because I'm more productive that way. I don't get that option in Metro. In fact, I don't get many options at all. I'm just told - do it this way. Screw you, I'd rather do it my own way, and I wouldn't force anyone else to do it my way. They can pick whatever the hell way they want.

Metro DOES not present files in tiles. It present Apps in tiles. If you want to use Explorer -- that's available to you. So you have options. I personally never use the explorer in Windows 7. I just use the Start Menu search to find any files within a fraction of a second. I can also do the same on Windows 8. That's called CHOICE.

You think we're the Luddites, when we're the ones who aren't falling in line for this utilitarian BS Microsoft is throwing at everyone. We're the ones who want to do things our own way and be creative - which is not the Metro way -and you lap that Metro stuff up, not even knowing you have less real control over your system than before. But you like to imagine you do because you can do stuff like change the freaking background color from green to whatever glorious hue you can think of.

You think you know more about productivity and usability than Microsoft? I don't. Plus Microsoft have explained in great detail how they arrived at their design choices. That's why I fully agree with them. Again, doing things YOUR way, even though there is no evidence of that being more productive, does not make you a power user. It does NOT. It makes you a stubborn self-proclaimed geek. I myself am also a Computer Science graduate and I have been programming since I was 10. But I DO NOT like to do things MY way to prove my geekiness. I read Microsoft's arguments, and because I found them compelling, and couldn't find flaws with them, I decided to do things Microsoft way -- and that has made me more productive.

 

[Coke Robot]

Well we have systems with lots of RAM and really good processors now, Coke and having 20 opened Desktop apps would be of ease without having to suspend the rest and resource usage on some of these apps do lower if that app has been idle for a few minutes. With full screen Metro apps, I don't think most people would pay even 10 dollars for that if a Desktop app or even a desktop gadget which is more accustomed to them would be available for free download anyway. In fact many of the fancy paid apps out there have a free alternative somewhere. Remember we got thousands and thousands of free programs available for download. 100 dollar Desktop apps?? Well don't be exaggerated over there, apps that reach those prices are of professional office software or AV software suites. Microsoft has app developers and of course their company want them to works as team players and cooperate on what the company wants but I believe there are even more developers who don't work for Microsoft and these are the guys who would have mixed opinions and won't have MS force them what to do. In fact, I have not felt any uproar of so many developers rushing in to make Metro apps but time will tell.

What is it in Metro apps that turns me off? I'm pretty sure you are aware I don't like the Start Menu taking the whole screen, I can't live with full screen apps on a huge monitor that doesn't have window controls and I just can't multitask with it the way I do on Desktop apps. I have said that a number of times.

Many systems are of good specs, but you need to consider millions of PCs are from the vista era, of single or dual core processors and below four gigs of RAM. Newer PCs do.

There are apps on phone marketplaces that do things a desktop gadget cannot do, other than a desktop program. But my 1o dollar app, 100 dollar program is a hypothetical situation. Given the choices, a consumer would go with what costs less to them and adapt to that.

And yeah, I realize a desktop app of that cost is of professional caliber or anti-virus caliber, I already said that. I say that because most people don't go out and buy the latest Office version or an actual decent anti-virus suite because of cost. I mean, take Kaspersky Internet Security 2012. I have a friend who bought it this past December and it was a full year license. There's only enough days in the subscription until May of this year. That license became active months earlier, but was the same cost as if it were a new license. Things like that turn people off. Of course, there are free alternatives, but you get what you get.

So, when you use Windows 7 and open the start menu, where does your focus go to? Does it stay on some open window or windows, or do you focus on opening something up from it?

Also, if you don't like full screen apps, then just don't use them. I don't really use desktop gadgets anymore. I don't install them or use because I don't care for them much. It's just like with full screen apps.

 

[Coke Robot]

I think the racism quote by coke robot is ugly. He/she implies people don't like someone who is different than themselves. That is the biggest load I've seen on the internet in a while.

People have a right not to like something. If using Metro bothers a computer user they should be able to say it without being trampled on and a Metro lover should be able to say that he likes it without being ridiculed. I do think good conversations about the pros and cons of Metro is a good thing for people to be able to make a purchasing decision. I personally don't like Metro. I can see a smart phone or tablet user liking it but on a desktop I don't like it. As for sitting at a desk and pushing buttons on a screen, no thanks. Those who like Metro including Microsoft will probably win out and I'll have to find some other way to process my information. It won't be using Metro though. The only reason Microsoft is in business today is because they caught on to the idea of windowing. I think Metro for the desktop is going backwards. I know it's hip to like Metro but I think Vista hate will be multiplied by a hundred for Metro. I also think if Microsoft is stubborn about Metro they will suffer a loss in sales. If they don't sell the OS or convert users to their way of thinking heads will roll. By the end of February Microsoft will show their hand and people can either embrace it or find other methods of computing.

As I said, I was going out on a limb...

Even then, when you see someone who is different from you, MOST people have a tendency not to like them for that and associate with people of their own kind. It's simple psychology.


And I only defend metro design and Start Screen because all I EVER SEE is random criticisms about the changes in Windows 8 that are probably not based of true, honest opinion that is based of ACTUAL IN DEPTH usage of Windows 8. All I see on this forum are haters of metro design because it apparently hampers productivity or multitasking, again, SOME of those opinions are based off mere hours or days using Windows 8. I've been using it myself since September and I've used it as much as I possibly can. THERE IS NO TANGIBLE IMPEDIMENT TO MULTITASKING OR PRODUCTIVITY. I know some hater of metro will comment on this saying I'm deluded by a tablet OS, ok, fine. If that person wants to continue that course of thinking, I can't stop that. They can continue to refuse to ACTUALLY use said OS in depth and make superficial judgments based off such.

Gahh.....

 

[Coke Robot]

For some reason you can't grasp any of this. The very type of dumb arguments you can't stand - the ones people like me are not making but you claim we are - are the ones you actually use. Do you even get that? No. You think we're the Luddites, when we're the ones who aren't falling in line for this utilitarian BS Microsoft is throwing at everyone. We're the ones who want to do things our own way and be creative - which is not the Metro way -and you lap that Metro stuff up, not even knowing you have less real control over your system than before. But you like to imagine you do because you can do stuff like change the freaking background color from green to whatever glorious hue you can think of.

CT, let me first tell you that I agree with you 100%. I find it very annoying that the fans of Metro have the need to paint those that are opposed to this interface as "Luddites" or "technophobes". This is absolutely not true. In fact, most of the opposition to the Metro Start Menu is from power users, persons who are in the forefront of technology, not from Luddites or technophobes (who probably run Macs, anyway).

I keep pointing out that Metro is old, it is not new. The first time this interface appeared, it was in "Media Center". This remains the least used part of Windows, with only 0.1% of users ever bothering to use it. Then it appeared in Zune and we all know how well it did there. Then, for the last 2 years, it is in Windows Phone and it has not burned the charts in any way. So, it is silly to claim that it something new that technophobes would avoid.

The so-called scientific argument was one by Sinofski, the guy who leads the Win8 team, who analyzed telemetry data on the use of the Start Menu. However, this was hardly scientific (although some of the statistics made it look "scientific"). I can point out 10 different things that made this whole analysis totally worthless, but I would not even bother. He did not analyze the rest of the Windows interface (including the use of taskbar, etc). This was a cherry-picked argument.

I think that we all know why Microsoft is developing Win8 the way it does. Microsoft believes that the whole computing paradigm is going to migrate to a smartphone & tablet paradigm and that non-handhelds (desktops and laptops) would progressively disappear. They saw Apple partially merging iOS and OSX in Lion, and they got scared. In fact, in Lion, Apple simply provided a way to run iOS apps and allowed some customizable items to be used in "the iOS way" based on user preference. The user reception of Lion has been quite tepid. Most actually hated it. I do not think that there is anything wrong in allowing mobile apps to run in the desktop provided that they are windowed. The Apple approach seems about right. In fact, a number of companies would soon offer ways to run Android apps in the Win7 desktop (there is a number of beta programs out there). However, it is totally different to have a mobile OS take over a desktop machine. I find it laughable that now Microsoft is terming all desktop applications as "legacy apps".

Let's say we go away from desktop applications and develop touch-enabled apps. By the very nature of the touch interface, these are going to be simplified programs. A Metro-style Excel will have a very simplified menu structure and it would display only a quarter of the cells that are displayable at the same resolution in a non-handheld. Is this really the future? I hope not.

Microsoft has every reason to be concerned. I was in a recent meeting in which sales reps were strongly demanding iPads because using their laptops was "too much of a hassle". Well, this would be true in several occasions and computing will become more and more fragmented. It is unavoidable. Those who do not have a need for rich computing, will migrate to simpler machines. But offering the same OS in every device is not the answer. Microsoft could have offered tablets with Windows Phone 7 a year ago and it could have created a "tablet-oriented" version of Win8. Apple is keeping iOS and OSX separate. This is the correct way to go. Desktop (non-handheld) computing would be with us for ever. It may comprise a smaller part of the overall usage, but it would still be a huge component. I think that MS is doing a tragic mistake that it would cost it dearly. But only the future can tell.

I would actually want know what you see wrong with the start menu's scientific research.

Metro is modern retro to me. I know that, and if you look at some design trends, doing something that was once done in the long past again with a modern twist is something new. But again, superficial judgments about metro designed programs, it's not the design that was the issue, it's the lack of marketing. I don't think anyone even uses media center because media player is just fine. Zune isn't used much because of Microsoft's awful attempts at marketing the Zune Player was just a failure and the Windows Phone 7 is barely picking steam now, which uses the Zune Software.

The reason why Microsoft didn't make a Windows tablet OS based off the Windows Phone was because it's based of the old CE kernel of Windows, and it's not bringing something innovative to the table. We already have tablets running a neutered phone OS with iOS and android, Microsoft doesn't believe in taking that route. People want to use a Windows product that can be touch oriented or desktop oriented.

Desktopping is facing the reality that it's becoming a power user and content creator's device. For some reason, people buy laptops over desktops even though some people don't even go mobile. Why? Maybe better innovations in mobile technology and design over the desktop.

From what you say about Windows 8, I'm starting to think you don't fully understand the Start Screen.

 

[Coke Robot]

Instead of using CAPS indiscriminately, link that evidence to Metro use, specifically. If you already have, I've missed it, sorry. Re-link it because I'd like to read what you're talking about so I can stop talking to you in generalities.

I would like to hear what problems you have with Microsoft's SCIENTIFIC arguments.

1.) I suspect they'll change a big annoyance with the new release, nonetheless, when you add a program, you don't just get a cute little box for the executable - you get the uninstall box and every other annoying peripheral box associated with the program. PITA to clear that mess out, giant waste of my time.

1a.) Clearing out every stupid App box in the first place. I don't use any of that junk. It's the latest iteration of bloatware. Again, total waste of my time.

First of all, you get the EXACT same thing with the fugly old Start Menu that you love. EVERY little unwanted piece of crap gets added there and bloats up the list. So, there's no way Metro is WORSE. Yes, this may not be IDEAL -- and I'm sure it will change in future builds. But again, it's not WORSE than the fugly old classic UI.
You think those preview apps and sample games will be there in the final release? Hell no. Only the basic Windows features will be on the Start Screen by default. The rest can be downloaded from the beautiful new Windows Store.

Have you used any complex Metro apps yet? How do you know it's not productive? Wait until Windows Store opens and complex apps start to appear. Only then can either you or I say if it's indeed less or more proudctive.

NO. Metro is NOT a touch UI. It is just AS productive with the mouse and keyboard as it is with touch. Microsoft has explained in detail how easy it is to navigate Metro with mouse and keyboard -- much more so than the fugly old classic UI.


Which brings us back to the original point why would you want to disable the beautiful and productive Metro UI in the first place?

Good on you for not typing them out, because there is not ONE logical point in there. For example, the pathetic clown who wrote that article doesn't like the ribbon, but explains no reason why. Just says:

Ha ha ha ha ha! What a logical and imaginative argument indeed.

6. I don't like my files represented by Fisher-Price boxes. I prefer lists. On Windows 7 I don't use large icons for files, I don't use small icons. I don't use Tiles. I use "Details" because I'm more productive that way. I don't get that option in Metro. In fact, I don't get many options at all. I'm just told - do it this way. Screw you, I'd rather do it my own way, and I wouldn't force anyone else to do it my way. They can pick whatever the hell way they want.

Metro DOES not present files in tiles. It present Apps in tiles. If you want to use Explorer -- that's available to you. So you have options. I personally never use the explorer in Windows 7. I just use the Start Menu search to find any files within a fraction of a second. I can also do the same on Windows 8. That's called CHOICE.

You think we're the Luddites, when we're the ones who aren't falling in line for this utilitarian BS Microsoft is throwing at everyone. We're the ones who want to do things our own way and be creative - which is not the Metro way -and you lap that Metro stuff up, not even knowing you have less real control over your system than before. But you like to imagine you do because you can do stuff like change the freaking background color from green to whatever glorious hue you can think of.

You think you know more about productivity and usability than Microsoft? I don't. Plus Microsoft have explained in great detail how they arrived at their design choices. That's why I fully agree with them. Again, doing things YOUR way, even though there is no evidence of that being more productive, does not make you a power user. It does NOT. It makes you a stubborn self-proclaimed geek. I myself am also a Computer Science graduate and I have been programming since I was 10. But I DO NOT like to do things MY way to prove my geekiness. I read Microsoft's arguments, and because I found them compelling, and couldn't find flaws with them, I decided to do things Microsoft way -- and that has made me more productive.

These quoted "arguments" remind me of a certain political faction...