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

 

[pezzonovante]

I really do not want to insult you, but you seem so intent to disregard any arguments to the contrary that you seem to replying to yourself, not to others. I explained to you what the concept of "touch-first" means but it does not seem to register. Let me try again: independent of the fact that you can interact with the application with a mouse, the application is primarily designed for touch. That, by itself, creates specific limitations (mainly of space) to these applications. Do you get it????

No, touch-first does not imply it can't be as efficient with a mouse/keyboard. For example, the Start Screen is touch first -- but still it is more friendly using a mouse and keyboard than the fugly old classic Start Menu.

Now, as I said several times already -- I won't comment on the Metro APPS yet. Why? Because we still haven't seen professionally made Metro apps from the Windows Store. All we have seen are some "preview" fun apps created by Microsoft interns -- they are no indicators of how real-world serious Metro apps are going to be like.

Now, your claim that Win8 is a "desktop and tablet OS" while the iPad is a "tablet OS" is laughable. In fact, from what I hear, iPad3 (which will be introduced shortly), will run in a higher resolution and more demanding hardware than currently discussed Intel-based Win8 tablets. Thus, iPad programs would provide you very good indications as to what is possible with Win8 tablets. There is little doubt that developers for the iPad may be interested in porting their products to Win8 tablets. It would be the touch requirement that would dictate the richness and behavior of these products.

Wait.. iOS is NOT a tablet OS? Is it a desktop OS? So does crApple sell iOS desktops/laptops? I would like to see one.

If you had followed the Build Windows conference in September you would have known how much more technologically advanced Metro apps are compared to iOS apps. It's not even close.

The "desktop" is a wash. Desktop applications not designed for touch would work as they always have. They would be virtually inoperable in a tablet. Try running Photoshop in a 10'' inch screen and you would see what I mean.

When did I say classic "desktop" apps are going to be great to use on a tablet? In fact, classic apps will slowly be phased out in the coming years in favour of Metro apps -- just like DOS apps.

 

[Vertex]

Microsoft's research is not "mumbo jumbo" -- well maybe to a very tiny minority of Luddites who know ZERO about scienctific research. MOST consumers LOVE the Metro UI.

And yet again -- you haven't given any SPECIFIC example against the Metro START SCREEN.

Look, they may be rants for you, but if its hinders what other people see as efficient, of course they have the right to complain and others who are in favor in of the new stuff have no right to silence others who are not in favor and prevent them from stating their point.

Start Menu vs. Metro Start Screen

Let me begin, Start Menu takes only a fraction of the screen. If I had a 15 inch monitor, it takes about 35% of the visible space and yes, it can display less icons than the Metro can display tiles but at least, there still space for me to overlook a huge part of the Desktop and the running Desktop apps in it and also, the all important Taskbar is visible, accessible and usable as it is. Searching for files and programs is easy. Just by typing the name or the first few letters of the name, displays the possible results on a list displayed on the Start Menu, without taking additional space. Recently accessed files are shown on the "Recent Items" List or recently modified folders if you right click the Windows Explorer icon pinned on the Taskbar. Recently opened files can also be accessed when you right click on the corresponding icon of the program that opens them if pinned on the Taskbar or on the right arrows displayed next to the program icons such as MS Word on the Start Menu list of pinned icons.

My Start Menu on my 15" monitor, consumes about 35% of the overall screen space. It holds 15 pinned program icons and another 15 links. It also holds the handy search bar and a decent power button to shutdown or restart the PC directly against the Metro screen who has the power button hidden under "Settings", how odd. First time users would have little clue where to find it. Of course, I have other icons on the Desktop and I feel clever by making a folder on the Desktop that holds more of my program Shortcut icons so my Desktop doesnt clutter.

And now, the Metro screen. It displays live tiles of Metro apps, quite cool, yeah. It displays tiles on my installed programs, its possible to group them but it also displays tiles of the corresponding uninstallers of those programs by default that I have to unpin, this may be a nuisance as it clutters the list of program tiles. At least that's how it is on the WDP.

The Start Screen takes the WHOLE screen, OBSCURING my view of the Desktop and the running Desktop apps in it. Typing search on the little search bar on what remains of the Start Menu when I click the bottom left side of the Start button displays a fullscreen search section on my right, again OBSCURING my view of the Desktop and those running in it. I think using the Search got harder for me. The Taskbar is also obscured. I'd imagine using a 22" monitor, with the Metro screen appearing everytime I click on the Start button and obscuring my Desktop and all the opened programs in it, it'll be a nightmare!

The Start Screen should have an easily visible and accessible power button like the old Start Menu but as of its design in WDP, it doesn't and has its hidden on the "Settings" and people who do not see this will try to log off then shut down the PC from there. It was a design fail and I hope they better have a power button there easily visible on the Consumer Preview. Those are my reasons and they are intertwined with each other, got that?

Microsoft's research is not "mumbo jumbo" -- well maybe to a very tiny minority of Luddites who know ZERO about scienctific research. MOST consumers LOVE the Metro UI.

I did "scientific research" on highschool and even on my college years, we still did "research" and I'm sure that a number of these "Luddites" have also been through the same thing when they were at school. So we don't have ZERO knowledge of research. A lot of times,you don't need "scientific research" at all to see which is right and wrong. A lot of times, you just need to be practical and use simple logic to see what is right. Do I need scientific research on something as deciding whether to use trimming scissors or an electric lawn mower to cut the grass faster? Tell you what, if two or more groups does a "research" on something, they could come up with different conclusions. Why? Because they may have looked into a different way or a different sort of variables than the other team. So just because Team A's conclusion was this, does not mean, it should be the same conclusion of the other teams and it does not mean Team A's conclusion was an absolute correct because the other teams might have looked in places, facts or things that Team A did not.

So just because MS had this conclusion on their "scientific research", making that sound so appealing, does not mean, you have to impose to us that they are absolutely right, we should follow them and that our opinions are absurd. Does the research guys on MS know EVERYTHING? No. Do they they know the point of view of ALL people? Nope. Do they follow what the company tells them to do even though it may be a bit out balance so they can be called "team players" Probably and highly likely, YES. Of course MS would not make themselves look shabby even on the results of the research. Do you think MS would show up anything very negative against them? No.

There is an indefinite number of people who like and dislike the Metro UI but as far as I read on comments on other sites and on this forum, many people are a bit frustrated with the current deign of the Metro. I've seen more comments of those who were against than those who loved it. That's a fact. If you think many people are said to have been satisfied on the "research", well those are the MS fanboys on the research. haha But how about us who are not? You immediately assumed that "most" people loved it and we who do not are a tiny minority. Check this video:

Systems Administrator Reacts to Windows 8 - YouTube

And check the comments below the video. What makes you think now that those who are against it are a "very tiny minority"? If you still think that its a very tiny minority, then you are not seeing the outside of the box of your own opinion.

You know, if only the Start Screen and the old Start Menu were to have separate buttons, it would change so much. I'm sure MS is seeing this kind of criticism, but would they listen and make a huge move? Time will tell.

To those who doubt this post, please take time and read it carefully. Thank you

 

[Colonel Travis]

Every time Pezz comes here and reads this thread, this is the reaction:

[video=youtube;Cg4rJscrt6k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg4rJscrt6k[/video]

 

[pezzonovante]

Look, they may be rants for you, but if its hinders what other people see as efficient, of course they have the right to complain and others who are in favor in of the new stuff have no right to silence others who are not in favor and prevent them from stating their point.

I never asked anyone for silence. I wanted a logical debate. On the contrary, Metro haters told me on several occasion that if I love the Metro UI so be it and that I shouldn't try to express my love affair with the gorgeous Metro UI.

Let me begin, Start Menu takes only a fraction of the screen. If I had a 15 inch monitor, it takes about 35% of the visible space and yes, it can display less icons than the Metro can display tiles but at least, there still space for me to overlook a huge part of the Desktop and the running Desktop apps in it and also, the all important Taskbar is visible, accessible and usable as it is.

Why would you want access to the desktop while you are INSIDE the Start Screen/Start Menu. You opened the Start Screen/Menu to accomplish a task, and while you are doing it -- the focus was always going to be away from anything else. As soon as you have completed that particular task -- for example, launching an app or searching for a file-- you can go back to what you had been doing.
You needed one click to go back from the opened Start Menu, and you still need one click to go back from the Start Screen. There's no difference in terms of usability.

Searching for files and programs is easy. Just by typing the name or the first few letters of the name, displays the possible results on a list displayed on the Start Menu, without taking additional space.

You can do the EXACT same thing on Metro Start Screen. Just start typing. No need to click any box or button. And what's more -- on Start Menu's tiny list -- only a very few results could be shown. So I had click "See more results" to find the file I was looking for. In Start Screen plenty of results can be shown without having to change the screen at all.

Recently accessed files are shown on the "Recent Items" List or recently modified folders if you right click the Windows Explorer icon pinned on the Taskbar. Recently opened files can also be accessed when you right click on the corresponding icon of the program that opens them if pinned on the Taskbar or on the right arrows displayed next to the program icons such as MS Word on the Start Menu list of pinned icons.

In other words, you're talking about jump lists. Microsoft addressed this issue in their blog. So, I will just quote them.

Having a way to quickly access content within an app is a great feature and we're happy to see the enthusiasm and increasing usage for jump lists in Windows 7. We have developed something new for Metro style apps that builds on the jump list concept. We think it will be even more powerful for end-users and an even richer opportunity for app developers. But first, some background on jump list usage in Windows today.

Current usage of jump lists

Though jump lists are often referenced with positive energy by our enthusiast users, the fact of the matter is that the usage of jump lists in the Start menu (most recently used documents for an app, for example) has not really gained as much traction as on the taskbar. To compare, 20% of sessions record a click to open a taskbar jump list, while only 1.2% of sessions record a click to invoke a Start menu jump list. People also use hover to invoke the Start menu jump list (and drag to invoke the taskbar jump list), but it’s difficult to use these numbers because we can’t tell whether the menu was opened intentionally or simply because the mouse was hovering over the item long enough to trigger it. Either way, even with accidental activations via mouse hover, at best, the Start menu jump lists are used half as often as those of the taskbar.

Applying this to Metro style apps

Given this data, we knew it was important to keep jump lists on the taskbar for your most commonly used desktop apps. But, we wanted to build something more customized for Metro style apps. The downside of existing jump lists is that they’re limited to what Windows understands best– files. This is great for file-centric apps, but apps today are moving away from the notion of files and turning to hosted content, which makes the concept of document jump lists less relevant.

Instead of building on and promoting file structure, our view for Metro style apps is more app-centric. The apps know better what kind of content they host: whether it’s an RSS feed, an album, a score tracker, or a person’s profile, and they can do a much better job exposing quick access to this content to the user. This content doesn’t involve files on the system that Windows knows about – it’s knowledge within the app. We’ve expanded the jump list concept to provide semantically richer links.

But we don’t want to have to manage several lists of our favorite stuff. One of the promises of the Start screen is that it is your personal place to host the apps that you love. We based the secondary tiles feature, on the notion that people want fast access to app content that they require for work, and they want a single, predictable place to access it. With this feature, any Metro style app can allow a user to pin a new tile to their Start screen that can navigate them to any part of the app. The tile can even be live, providing updates for that specific content. There's no reason a file-centric app would not provide this same functionality for files. We know from usage data that people are fairly meticulous and deliberate in reusing common documents—MRUs composed of pinned files are extremely popular in Office apps and on the taskbar. The support we provide for developers makes this straightforward.

For example, I can have a social tile of my best friend pinned to my Start screen and keep up to date with her updates. Or I can track the XKCD feed from my RSS reader. Or quickly jump to a playlist that I like to listen to in the morning the same way I would have from a jump list. We expect line of business applications to allow this “deep linking” to specific machines for monitoring, account information, or other exception handling (as we described with our bug tracking application). All from the Start screen. All of these organized among other apps that I like to use, so they are fast to access and get me quickly to the content that I want to consume.

Building on secondary tiles

We’re continuing to invest in enabling Metro style app developers to provide personal and rich content to their users through live tiles. Secondary tiles will be a big part of making your machine feel more useful and personal, and something that you love to use. To help, we’re building even more live tile templates into our catalog so that developers can enable more scenarios for their users.

It holds 15 pinned program icons and another 15 links. It also holds the handy search bar and a decent power button to shutdown or restart the PC directly against the Metro screen who has the power button hidden under "Settings", how odd. First time users would have little clue where to find it. Of course, I have other icons on the Desktop and I feel clever by making a folder on the Desktop that holds more of my program Shortcut icons so my Desktop doesnt clutter.

As I said previously Metro Start Screen can hold PLENTY more apps and folders than the tiny Start Menu ever could. The power buttons will be positioned differently in future builds of Windows 8. Any folder can be pinned at the Start Screen in the Consumer Preview. So once again, no functionality is lost compared to the Start Menu.

And now, the Metro screen. It displays live tiles of Metro apps, quite cool, yeah. It displays tiles on my installed programs, its possible to group them but it also displays tiles of the corresponding uninstallers of those programs by default that I have to unpin, this may be a nuisance as it clutters the list of program tiles. At least that's how it is on the WDP.

Except the Start Menu does the EXACT same thing. Start Menu also gets cluttered with uninstallers and other things.
And while you may dismiss the Live Tiles as just "cool" -- I find them EXTREMELY productive. I will no longer have to check my email client over and over -- or Twitter or Facebook or sports scores or any other app which has some kind of notification mechanism. This will save plenty of time in switching between apps from time to time.

The Start Screen takes the WHOLE screen, OBSCURING my view of the Desktop and the running Desktop apps in it. Typing search on the little search bar on what remains of the Start Menu when I click the bottom left side of the Start button displays a fullscreen search section on my right, again OBSCURING my view of the Desktop and those running in it. I think using the Search got harder for me. The Taskbar is also obscured. I'd imagine using a 22" monitor, with the Metro screen appearing everytime I click on the Start button and obscuring my Desktop and all the opened programs in it, it'll be a nightmare!

I just addressed this. But again: when you click the Start Menu/Screen you have a particular task in mind. And the focus is ALWAYS drawn away from what you had been doing. To regain the focus previously you had to press the Win Key, and you have to do the exact same thing with the Start Screen. There's no loss of functionality. There's no problem in having a full screen of tiles -- only benefits.

Tell you what, if two or more groups does a "research" on something, they could come up with different conclusions. Why? Because they may have looked into a different way or a different sort of variables than the other team. So just because Team A's conclusion was this, does not mean, it should be the same conclusion of the other teams and it does not mean Team A's conclusion was an absolute correct because the other teams might have looked in places, facts or things that Team A did not.

Sure. That's what I've been asking for all along. Show us YOUR research. Microsoft have shown theirs. Come up with some usability data and stats. I would LOVE seeing any data from Metro haters.
While I'm not sure how appropriate this analogy is. But this seems like the Sabermetrics debate in baseball. Statisticians and researchers have done extensive research on Baseball, and disproved most of the illusions those so-called experienced managers/scouts had. But those stubborn managers have too much ego to agree with facts. There's a great book called Moneyball, and a recent movie of the same name too.

There is an indefinite number of people who like and dislike the Metro UI but as far as I read on comments on other sites and on this forum, many people are a bit frustrated with the current deign of the Metro. I've seen more comments of those who were against than those who loved it. That's a fact. If you think many people are said to have been satisfied on the "research", well those are the MS fanboys on the research. haha But how about us who are not? You immediately assumed that "most" people loved it and we who do not are a tiny minority. Check this video:

You know what, this ALWAYS happens with every single issue in the world. The number of negative comments on ANY topic ALWAYS outweighs the number of positive ones. It's always more enjoyable to post a rant, than saying "Thank you Microsoft for your wonderful research. I simply love the gorgeous Metro UI." Microsoft's research has shown most people would love the changes. And, that's why they have made this decision. No amount of whining from the minority will change that -- just like no amount of whining about the Ribbon changed anything, and it was proven that MOST people liked and benefitted from the ribbon. This will be the exact same situation.
And computer UIs are continue to get easier and easier to use. Ubuntu's new UI is also designed like that. Yes, some people moaned there too. But that's never going to work.
Metro is here to stay. And this is the single greatest thing Microsoft has done in the last 20 years. I can't wait to get my hands on the Consumer Preview and Metro apps.

 

[Colonel Travis]

This thread isn't about Metro any more, it's about filling in some acceptance void Pezz has.

 

[Kriswithak]

I'm waititng for windows 8 beta,so I don't have 8 on this computer,found this on youtube,dont know if it works,...windows key +r, regedit, computer, hd current user, software, microsoft, windows, current version, explorer, rp enabled...double click change value from 1 to 0, ok,....supposedly gives you the choice ( I love that word) useing the windows key.. metro, or normal 7 style start screen....I'd try it myself ,but I'm not going to reload developers preview....(remember this is unproven,risky)

 

[Colonel Travis]

But this seems like the Sabermetrics debate in baseball. Statisticians and researchers have done extensive research on Baseball, and disproved most of the illusions those so-called experienced managers/scouts had.

No, that's not really true. In another life I used to cover MLB for a living. Statistical analysts can't find and develop talent. What they can do is find better ways of evaluating players already in MLB. The game itself hasn't changed as much as you think. And regarding Moneyball - how many pennants has Billy Beane won in his career as GM?

This isn't a good analogy for Windows evaluation, either. Too many people have too many different uses for one particular tool. That's not the same as looking at numbers in sports in different ways. Even you should grasp that there is no one perfect metric for player evaluation.

 

[pezzonovante]

No, that's not really true. In another life I used to cover MLB for a living. Statistical analysts can't find and develop talent. What they can do is find better ways of evaluating players already in MLB. The game itself hasn't changed as much as you think. And regarding Moneyball - how many pennants has Billy Beane won in his career as GM?

This isn't a good analogy for Windows evaluation, either. Too many people have too many different uses for one particular tool. That's not the same as looking at numbers in sports in different ways. Even you should grasp that there is no one perfect metric for player evaluation.

Yes, Sabermetrics does not create talent -- but neither do scouts/managers. That's not the point. Players who used to be underrated in previous eras are being appreciated these days. For example those with low batting average, but high walk rates. Also, winning pennants involves winning a 5 game-series, followed by a 7 game-series. As Billy said in Moneyball -- postseason is a crapshoot. It's been proven beyond doubt. The more accurate reflection of a team's performance is their 162-game record -- which Billy Beane did manage to succeed in, at least before Sabermetrics caught on to other teams.

But let's not get drawn into that debate here -- there's plenty of it on the interwebs. However, I'm not surprised to see we have differing views on this topic too. Let's just agree to disagree we have complete opposite views of the world.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Yes, Sabermetrics does not create talent -- but neither do scouts/managers. That's not the point.

Do you read anything anyone writes? Seriously. I could go line-by-line on every single post of yours and point out errors like this one. I didn't say "create" I said "find and develop." There's a big difference in not just those words, but the greater issue expressed. Your biggest problems are selectively reading and ignoring information you don't like. Then you throw a hissy fit when someone doesn't see it your way.

The more accurate reflection of a team's performance is their 162-game record -- which Billy Beane did manage to succeed in, at least before Sabermetrics caught on to other teams.

Yes, let's go with this. Beane's greatest teams came with many players he wasn't fully responsible for. Did you know this? A bunch were Alderson's guys. Since Beane's had full control over picking talent, the A's have had more 3rd and 4th places finishes in a 4-team division than 1st place finishes. Did you know this?

You aren't the critical thinker you think you are, Pezz. You really aren't. No one who disagrees with you in this OS debate is screaming that you should hate Metro. Have you noticed that? No one is saying - don't buy it. No one is saying - you're a Luddite for loving it. I don't know why you are so obsessed with having people agree with you, but like I said earlier, it's a sign that what you're really after doesn't have much to do with Metro at all.

 

[pezzonovante]

Do you read anything anyone writes? Seriously. I could go line-by-line on every single post of yours and point out errors like this one. I didn't say "create" I said "find and develop." There's a big difference in not just those words, but the greater issue expressed. Your biggest problems are selectively reading and ignoring information you don't like. Then you throw a hissy fit when someone doesn't see it your way.

OK, I admit I did confuse "create" with "find and develop" -- but your statement still doesn't hold water. Sabermetrics is not just good for evaluating MLB level players. It's good at identifying young talents too -- much more so than old-fashioned scouts. Old school scouts looks for those so-called intangible qualities in players almost all of which don't exist in reality. Sabermetrics values young hitters' plate discipline and pitchers' strikeout rate etc.

Yes, let's go with this. Beane's greatest teams came with many players he wasn't fully responsible for. Did you know this? A bunch were Alderson's guys. Since Beane's had full control over picking talent, the A's have had more 3rd and 4th places finishes in a 4-team division than 1st place finishes. Did you know this?

And did you know from whom Billy learnt about Sabermetrics in the first place? Sandy Alderson. The Oakland A's had no RIGHT to win as many games as they did with their payroll -- Sabermetrics made all the difference. But then why couldn't Billy keep it up? Because Sabermetrics spread like fire soon. Bill James and Theo Epstein joined the Red Sox. Sabermetrics was at least partially responsible for the Red Sox's dominance. Tampa Bay Rays' front office are probably the best example of it right now. Almost every single MLB front office heavily relies on Sabermetrics these days. Billy has lost that competitive advantage he once had.

You aren't the critical thinker you think you are, Pezz. You really aren't. No one who disagrees with you in this OS debate is screaming that you should hate Metro. Have you noticed that? No one is saying - don't buy it. No one is saying - you're a Luddite for loving it. I don't know why you are so obsessed with having people agree with you, but like I said earlier, it's a sign that what you're really after doesn't have much to do with Metro at all.

So, if someone told you the earth is flat, what would your response be? Just tell him, OK it's your opinion, it may or may not be right? NO. You would try to present him factual data on why the earth is NOT flat.

Whether Metro Start Screen is more productive or not is a FACT. And that's why I reject any "opinion" that it's not.

However, whether one finds Metro beautiful or not is subjective. And I haven't told anyone they have problems with their eye-sight just because they don't find Metro attractive like I do.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Sabermetrics is not just good for evaluating MLB level players. It's good at identifying young talents too -- much more so than old-fashioned scouts. Old school scouts looks for those so-called intangible qualities in players almost all of which don't exist in reality. Sabermetrics values young hitters' plate discipline and pitchers' strikeout rate etc.

No, you're so wrong here it's hilarious. I know scouts, Pezz. I talked to them and front office people about their jobs for many years. You really have no clue. The minor leagues are totally different than the majors, and even in the minors there are so many discrepancies between leagues, players change as they grow older, etc. Plate discipline is something baseball people have paid attention to since the 1800s. Scouts aren't old-school intangible guys. The more you go on about this stuff the more you reveal your ignorance about it. I'm not personally attacking you, it's just you flat out don't know what you're talking about.

. The Oakland A's had no RIGHT to win as many games as they did with their payroll -- Sabermetrics made all the difference. But then why couldn't Billy keep it up? Because Sabermetrics spread like fire soon.

Again, I'm laughing here. Really? Is that why Beane drafted more crappy players than Alderson? Is that also why the A's had no RIGHT to be good in the 60s and 70s? Or the Royals had no RIGHT to be as good as they were in the 70s and 80s? Or the Twins in the 80s and 90s? How come the Braves finished in last place in 1988, 89 and 90 but then got incredible in 1991 and just about every year after that? Is that why Beane signed Jason Kendall to a dumb contract? What do the Red Sox and Rays (or anyone else) have to do with how the A's build their entire organization?

Good Lord.

And I haven't told anyone they have problems with their eye-sight just because they don't find Metro attractive like I do.

Correct. You've just questioned the entire operation of their brain by calling them Luddites. Then you say how gorgeous Metro is a billion times, in case we missed it the first 999,999,999 times you said it.

 

[Coke Robot]

This thread isn't about Metro any more, it's about filling in some acceptance void Pezz has.

Or satirical mocking?...

 

[ADRz]

This thread isn't about Metro any more, it's about filling in some acceptance void Pezz has.

Or satirical mocking?...

Why not? Here is an article worth reading

Five Reasons why Windows 8 will be dead on arrival | ZDNet

 

[pezzonovante]

Oh wait, you ACTUALLY covered MLB for a living? I know that's a complete LIE. Otherwise you would know how dumbass those scouts really are. They didn't use to value players' walk rate -- they called it clogging up the bases. They wanted players who could perform under "clutch" situations, they wanted players who had no "fear" in their eyes, they wanted players who had better "team chemistry". Sabermetrics have proved these things DO NOT exist. They are flat out lies -- just like most of what you say.

Again, I'm laughing here. Really? Is that why Beane drafted more crappy players than Alderson? Is that also why the A's had no RIGHT to be good in the 60s and 70s? Or the Royals had no RIGHT to be as good as they were in the 70s and 80s? Or the Twins in the 80s and 90s? How come the Braves finished in last place in 1988, 89 and 90 but then got incredible in 1991 and just about every year after that? Is that why Beane signed Jason Kendall to a dumb contract? What do the Red Sox and Rays (or anyone else) have to do with how the A's build their entire organization?

Anyone who knows even a little about baseball (obviously not you) would know drafting good players involves PLENTY of luck. VERY few percentage of talented players actually make it to the top. Yes, Sabermetrics does help a lot in drafting and identifying good young talent, and it has helped Billy too, but you can go only so far with that. DRAFTING great players was not Billy's biggest competitive advantage. It was TRADING for and SIGNING undervalued players who had things like good walk-rate and K/BB ratio. That was a competitive advantage he had until EVERY other MLB tem started adopting Sabermetrics. Now he DOES NOT have that advantage anymore. He can't find high OBP guys any more at a cheap price. That's why with their limited budget they can't succeed as much as they used to.

But I can go on and on about Sabermetric all day. I can even post links on these EXACT same issues by people like Tango Tiger, MGL, Fangraphs/HardballTimes writers. But it's not worth it. You are too ignorant and closed-minded to ever understand these things. You are probably a big admirer of clowns like Murray Chass and Joe Morgan. Lol!

Correct. You've just questioned the entire operation of their brain by calling them Luddites. Then you say how gorgeous Metro is a billion times, in case we missed it the first 999,999,999 times you said it.

Ha ha -- you have HUGE problems, Colonel -- massive ones. I CLEARLY stated I didn't call them Luddites for not finding Metro beautiful. I called them Luddites for ignoring scientific research on the usability and productivity of Metro UI. I have no problem whatsoever that they don't find Metro UI as gorgeous and beautiful as I do. I have ZERO problem with that. But I said this before. You will probably STILL not understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[Vertex]

This "scientific research" is ALL you got in defending the Metro screen and with no solid evidence to back it up besides your own opinions and the "research" itself. It just obscures the screen and those that are running in the Desktop really because its fullscreen and don't repeat to me that getting to see the Desktop is pointless because using Metro apps are better and would replace Desktop apps. Simply put, many of us see little or no use with these Metro apps who are currently dumbed down in terms of usability and design for Desktop PC's and on my previous posts, I have explained why.

I and so many others certainly don't want the whole screen consumed by the Metro screen because it covers up everything else, running apps, the Desktop and I keep saying that over and over again. And by my understanding, a "research's" main purpose is not to solve a problem on its own and as I said researches vary depending on the methods used by the different groups of people who conducted them so the research by MS should not be the one and only basis of seeing which is best. Some of these "Luddities" you say have conducted research on their own and came up with different conclusions than MS. Get that? Its almost as if this research thing has been indoctrinated to you.

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

Vertex? This is pointless, go back a couple of months, I have stated the same thing you are. Windows 8 would be better for a Tablet/MS Phone than a desktop. You can type till you have carpal tunnel, but won't make a dent in what other's think.

 

[Vertex]

Well Mike, I believe I learned a lot on this forum from those who share my views as well as those who don't. If Windows 8 is better for tablets and phones than desktops and that I don't use tablets and these kinds of phones, seeing Windows 8 being developed like this leaves me unsatisfied.

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

Vertex, look at my current Oh NO! Look here boys and girls! in the chill out section, NOW the Start button took a dive off of Windows, and clicking on the Windows key on your keyboard doesn't give it back either.

 

[Vertex]

Yes Mike, I've seen news about them removing the Start Menu from the taskbar from some site. Quite sad.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Pezz, you don't know scouting, you don't know baseball as well as you think you do. Sorry. You simply do not have the knowledge you think you do, and you sure as hell have no wisdom about much in general. You don't know who I am or what I've written about baseball, and if you did I'm confident you wouldn't have unloaded that excrement on the screen.

You gloss over everyone's arguments here, doesn't matter the subject, you assume things me and others assume but don't, you demand reason and give none, you point to thinkers but do little of your own, you type in caps WAY TOO MUCH, you have a superiority complex. The latter would be bearable if you had some kind of clout in anything except being the classic, self-righteous, immature, internet dope. And you don't even stand out in that category. You're just like all the rest of them out there.