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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Coke Robot]

Another thing I think is being misrepresented here is that Metro means keyboards and mice are useless. What?! The only thing that has made them somewhat irrelevant is that Windows Explorer has a ribbon and has all the keyboard shortcuts graphically. It's the same thing that happened with Office 2007. People didn't like it since it had so much upfront and all the menus that power users used were gone. But those menus were introduced initially because people couldn't remember keyboard shortcuts.

As for mice, they're still used. In fact, navigating between Metro apps is actually superior as of now than touch since you can use a scroll wheel to switch to a specific app instead of shuffling through a bunch of apps.

The whole reason why Metro design was introduced for Windows 8 was because the Desktop really can't be developed any further. Microsoft could had made the Desktop to look like Windows 3.1 with giant windows and little information displayable. They didn't, they meshed a new interface with the Desktop. Even then, I think it better manages installed programs better than previous versions since you visually see everything and easily navigate through the Start Screen. The desktop of Windows 8 is literally just of 7 with a Metro sidebar when you use the Charms bar or click on the network tray icon. Speaking of such, I think the sidebar for the networking is much better because for laptops and other mobile devices that bounce off wifi, some people are in places where there's just a plethora of networks and you have to scroll like made to get on one.

Speaking of android 4, I've seen some screenshots and seen the visual animations of it, it goes to show how much google sucks on others' ideas. I've seen some Metro design of it in the settings menus based of the WP7. Metro design is coming everywhere. Google has done it, facebook has done it, it's in Office 2010 and Live Essentials 2011, just the essence of Metro design is in youtube, it's obviously in IE 9. Software design has gone from unnecessary visual fluff from Windows vista to the android phone. It's superfluous. Metro design is everything in every vision of the future: simplistic. It's natural of human beings, we want simplicity. We want a simple government that works, we want to live a simple life, we want to use interfaces that are simply designed.

I don't know, some people obviously won't accept change even though the benefits outweigh the cons....

We disagree profoundly. You have made a number of statements that I believe to be incorrect.

(a) Opponents of metro believe that keyboards and mice are rendered useless
(b) The desktop cannot be developed any further.

None of these assumptions are true. The opponents of metro are not worried about keyboards and mice. They are worried about a useless interface. Also, to believe that the desktop cannot be developed any further is simply crazy. In fact, one can come up with dozens of new ideas of how to enhance the desktop. I think that Android 4.0 shows the way pretty well.

Now, I have a very cynical view as to why MS decided to inflict metro on all of us. MS figured out that one of the key reasons of Apple's success with the iPad is that the public had been conditioned to iOs interface from the iPhone. Thus, MS figured out that if they conditioned the public to the Metro interface in the desktop and laptop, then this stupid public would be more apt to buying MS tablets and phones. It is as simple as this. MS is leveraging its position in the desktop to push its products in other markets.

Of course, we strongly disagree on the utility of Metro. But even this is not my major problem. I disagree with the whole notion of "touch first". The moment one begins designing programs and screens for "touch first", then one needs to dumb down the desktop since all elements have to become bigger in order to be touched. This is clearly exemplified by the dumbed down screens of Win8 developers preview. So, it is not just metro, it is the whole idea of "touch first" and what this means to data and command presentation.

Also, please stop deluding yourself that those who are opposed to Metro are simply resistant to change. This is not so.

Now, this whole argument boils down to whether or not one uses the Metro interface. If you're a tablet user, this concerns you. If you're a Desktop user, Metro shouldn't be much of concern because you can and will be able to customize the Start Screen to be like the Start menu, by having all your installed desktop programs visually in front of you. Mice and keyboards work fine with it.

Speaking of touch first, Windows 7 was really an attempt by Microsoft to truly try to get Windows on touch screens. One might argue that the taskbar of 7 is touch first. I mean, why didn't they just keep the original size of the taskbar and just made it a giant quicklaunch bar? Why did they expand it 10 pixels? Did they do it for touch users? That's that argument, but you hardly see people using a compact size of the taskbar because they think it works fine as it is.

The iOS is nothing more than taking the mac os and compacting it down to a smaller screen. If you take the ipad's screen and times it by two, you get a fairly similar appearance of the mac os. I believe that's a ploy by apple to get users on macs considering they've tweaked it to work a little more like an ipad.

But the thing is, Metro design is mostly just the Start Screen as of now. No touch user would ever want to use a Ribbon interface, only Desktop users. I'm going to assume your experience with Metro has only been the Start Screen, Weather app, Stocks app, twitter app, Socialite app, and the random games built full screen. The DP of 8 is just some caviar on a cracker compared to the gourmet feast that lies ahead. Microsoft already has thousands of developers for WP7, and they have hundreds of thousands of Windows developers. That's hundreds of thousands of ideas and opinions of how to design metro apps for both touch and desktop, not just what a group of interns thought of.

I agree with you about touch first and apple, I've always thought that tablets are content consumers and not creators because it's not Windows. It has everything available to make content. I'll stop deluding myself when you stop being so cynical.....

 

[ADRz]

Well, I am not cynical, I assure you. I am worried that 3 years of potential development of Windows are thrown off to go hunt the tablet market which Microsoft has absolutely no way of cracking.

Second: Touch-first dumbs down the desktop anyway you look at it. Only extreme fools will subject a desktop to a "touch-first" mentality. Combine this with "full screen" Metro apps and you have the full-scale destruction of a desktop OS. It is stupid and it is unnecessary. But you are almost convinced of this, anyway.

Now, I appreciate the problem for Microsoft. While Apple is essentially giving iOS for free because they are making huge profits in hardware, Microsoft does not have this route to profitability. Thus, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They certainly cannot extract $150 for a Windows license in tablet. If they can get $15, it would be a triumph, considering that Google is giving away a superior OS for tablets!!! So, what do they do? They are trying to leverage the desktop OS, condition users to it, so they can go and buy Win tablets and phones. If they keep Windows as a high performing desktop OS, then users would have little incentive to go and buy Windows tablets and phones, the ecosystem of which is so much poorer when compared to Apple and Google.

I am not sorry for Microsoft. They were stupid enough to create this dilemma. They would suffer the consequences. My guess is that Win8 would be an overall disaster, the users would not embrace it, Win8 tablets would be an irrelevance (not a good ecosystem, or too expensive) and WP7 would be behind the ball compared to iOS and Android.

At the end, one has to choose one's poison. Microsoft should have abandoned the tablet space and concentrated in providing an insanely good desktop OS that would rule in the desktop and laptop. It should have ceded the phone and tablet space to Apple and Google and it should have only supplied high-end tablets for the enterprise, running a tablet-enhanced version of the OS (as they did for XP). Trying to ride too many horses at the same time and you fall down flat.

The worse part of the story is that Microsoft is not listening to the users. It is just forging ahead, damned the torpedoes. I can assure you that this would be the first and only beta that I would not even bother to download and install and I am a paid Technet member. It is so appaling to me.

 

[Coke Robot]

Well, I am not cynical, I assure you. I am worried that 3 years of potential development of Windows are thrown off to go hunt the tablet market which Microsoft has absolutely no way of cracking.

Second: Touch-first dumbs down the desktop anyway you look at it. Only extreme fools will subject a desktop to a "touch-first" mentality. Combine this with "full screen" Metro apps and you have the full-scale destruction of a desktop OS. It is stupid and it is unnecessary. But you are almost convinced of this, anyway.

Now, I appreciate the problem for Microsoft. While Apple is essentially giving iOS for free because they are making huge profits in hardware, Microsoft does not have this route to profitability. Thus, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They certainly cannot extract $150 for a Windows license in tablet. If they can get $15, it would be a triumph, considering that Google is giving away a superior OS for tablets!!! So, what do they do? They are trying to leverage the desktop OS, condition users to it, so they can go and buy Win tablets and phones. If they keep Windows as a high performing desktop OS, then users would have little incentive to go and buy Windows tablets and phones, the ecosystem of which is so much poorer when compared to Apple and Google.

I am not sorry for Microsoft. They were stupid enough to create this dilemma. They would suffer the consequences. My guess is that Win8 would be an overall disaster, the users would not embrace it, Win8 tablets would be an irrelevance (not a good ecosystem, or too expensive) and WP7 would be behind the ball compared to iOS and Android.

At the end, one has to choose one's poison. Microsoft should have abandoned the tablet space and concentrated in providing an insanely good desktop OS that would rule in the desktop and laptop. It should have ceded the phone and tablet space to Apple and Google and it should have only supplied high-end tablets for the enterprise, running a tablet-enhanced version of the OS (as they did for XP). Trying to ride too many horses at the same time and you fall down flat.

The worse part of the story is that Microsoft is not listening to the users. It is just forging ahead, damned the torpedoes. I can assure you that this would be the first and only beta that I would not even bother to download and install and I am a paid Technet member. It is so appaling to me.

I'll be the first to admit I like Metro design, but then again, I'm coming into this conversation already introduced to metro design LONG before the Windows 8 Developer Preview so I'm already used to it. I agree that making a desktop interface capable of touch input is ridiculous since it's just inefficient use of time of having to zoom in and out just to copy and paste something. Full screen apps are one thing, a touch desktop is another.

apple makes money from their services mostly since they're not even breaking even from their idevice crap. It's app store and itunes. But manufacturers using Windows have different license agreements with Microsoft than the consumer. You can buy a 300 dollar desktop with Windows installed and you can build the same desktop for somewhat less than 300, but you still need Windows. It doesn't really impact the price of a system. I have to disagree with you but android is a fragmented os with three different versions out there with the x.32 and x.22 versions in between. It's like having the choice of Windows 2000, xp, vista, or 7. It's ballistic. And also, android doesn't have the same user satisfaction rate compared to the Windows Phone 7. You don't user WP7 skinning out the metro interface like android users. Android users can customize, which is a plus, but at the end of the day it's just screens with grids of icons and random widgets in between with the default system buttons. The real reason why people customize that way is really because they don't like how it looks. Comparing that with Windows, you rarely see users skinning out their desktops to look something other than Windows.

I doubt users with reject it, I know enthusiasts will. I've shown the DP of 8 to quite a few people and told them of some features and they all think it's great. I had someone tell me that full screen IE 10 is "fantastic." I've shown some people the Windows Phone 7 and a lot of them think it's quite cool and sleek. I have a friend that distances herself from technology and when I showed her the WP7, it was literally like watching a little kid play with a new toy.

I see this situation like xp and vista. Xp was the work horse of enterprise with vista being more for the average user. I see that now with 7 being the work horse of enterprise with 8 being for average users. I would wait before making a final judgment of 8 based of a developer's build. The only major aspect we've seen is the Start Screen. We haven't actually been able to see what 8 really is. There's much more to come.

For Microsoft, they cannot stay viable by just providing an insanely good desktop experience when users are shifting away from that. I know, it's stupid how people have been swooned by apple with every stupid free app a dolt can download. The position Microsoft's in is do we try to tinker and fine tune Windows 7 or do we reinnovate a produce we originally innovated in? They chose the latter. Time will tell if that was a good decision. But considering that just a build of Windows that is intended for developers has been downloaded three million times, not including from torrent sites, interest is there. Users are intrigued, developers are interested. Plus, Microsoft's business model IS to ride many horses at once. They have products for enterprise, enthusiasts, gamers, accountants, teachers, consumers and the such. That's what made them be able to ride a decade lacking innovation and stay profitable. Riding many horses for Windows is a good thing. It's a contiguous system of Windows that will work together better than ios or android. Unlike the two, Windows can actually stay independent of an external system. It functions better than to two as well. And with half of the product that can be actually used just for touch, it's win for them.

 

[ADRz]

I'll be the first to admit I like Metro design, but then again, I'm coming into this conversation already introduced to metro design LONG before the Windows 8 Developer Preview so I'm already used to it. I agree that making a desktop interface capable of touch input is ridiculous since it's just inefficient use of time of having to zoom in and out just to copy and paste something. Full screen apps are one thing, a touch desktop is another.

apple makes money from their services mostly since they're not even breaking even from their idevice crap. It's app store and itunes. But manufacturers using Windows have different license agreements with Microsoft than the consumer. You can buy a 300 dollar desktop with Windows installed and you can build the same desktop for somewhat less than 300, but you still need Windows. It doesn't really impact the price of a system. I have to disagree with you but android is a fragmented os with three different versions out there with the x.32 and x.22 versions in between. It's like having the choice of Windows 2000, xp, vista, or 7. It's ballistic. And also, android doesn't have the same user satisfaction rate compared to the Windows Phone 7. You don't user WP7 skinning out the metro interface like android users. Android users can customize, which is a plus, but at the end of the day it's just screens with grids of icons and random widgets in between with the default system buttons. The real reason why people customize that way is really because they don't like how it looks. Comparing that with Windows, you rarely see users skinning out their desktops to look something other than Windows.

I doubt users with reject it, I know enthusiasts will. I've shown the DP of 8 to quite a few people and told them of some features and they all think it's great. I had someone tell me that full screen IE 10 is "fantastic." I've shown some people the Windows Phone 7 and a lot of them think it's quite cool and sleek. I have a friend that distances herself from technology and when I showed her the WP7, it was literally like watching a little kid play with a new toy.

I see this situation like xp and vista. Xp was the work horse of enterprise with vista being more for the average user. I see that now with 7 being the work horse of enterprise with 8 being for average users. I would wait before making a final judgment of 8 based of a developer's build. The only major aspect we've seen is the Start Screen. We haven't actually been able to see what 8 really is. There's much more to come.

For Microsoft, they cannot stay viable by just providing an insanely good desktop experience when users are shifting away from that. I know, it's stupid how people have been swooned by apple with every stupid free app a dolt can download. The position Microsoft's in is do we try to tinker and fine tune Windows 7 or do we reinnovate a produce we originally innovated in? They chose the latter. Time will tell if that was a good decision. But considering that just a build of Windows that is intended for developers has been downloaded three million times, not including from torrent sites, interest is there. Users are intrigued, developers are interested. Plus, Microsoft's business model IS to ride many horses at once. They have products for enterprise, enthusiasts, gamers, accountants, teachers, consumers and the such. That's what made them be able to ride a decade lacking innovation and stay profitable. Riding many horses for Windows is a good thing. It's a contiguous system of Windows that will work together better than ios or android. Unlike the two, Windows can actually stay independent of an external system. It functions better than to two as well. And with half of the product that can be actually used just for touch, it's win for them.

Of course, you are entitled to your beliefs but even in this board, the user assessment is overall negative. Microsoft is trying very hard to have a consumer appeal and remain in the enterprise and it cannot achieve both of these goals, not with the present strategy. It will end up destroying both. With Vista (which I liked, by the way), they provided a huge opening to Apple and my guess is that Win8 will be also shunned by the users, providing now a huge gateway to Apple, Android, and other systems to even crack the enterprise space. Honestly, after 30 years, I am seriously considering abandoning Windows. Full-screen applications????? Heaven forbid. The whole idea of these last few years was to make the windowing interface great and now we are abandoning to go find a few deluded tablet users??? Come again?

Do you know how many times I have windows open of my browser and a document that I work with? Almost daily. I need a non-windowing browser like I need a hole in the head. And this applies to millions of professionals who examine information in one window and create documents in another. Killing usability to chase a few tablet users is a ridiculous idea. A really stupid one that would result to a disaster for Microsoft.

I have no idea as to why you like the Metro interface. For me, it brings up painful memories of task-switching interfaces of the pre-Windows world and it is as limited and as stupid as those. Nothing like a 30-year old idea to move sales again!!! It is really abhorrent. Of course, it is all a matter of taste.

Just to give you an idea, I needed to buy a new cell-phone recently. For the longest time, I had a Windows Mobile phone (amazing but true) although it was running the HTC's Sense interface. I examined all the new Mango phones (I am with AT&T) and the newer Android phones. I picked up the Galaxy S II Skyrocket running Android 2.3.6. It was not even a contest. The Android operating system was far more usable than WP 7.5. After using WP 7.5 for half an hour, I was actually tired sliding the interface and also ending up with a long list of installed applications. At the end, working with apps was not that different and, on top of this, WP 7.5 was and felt to be, far more limiting than either the iPhone and certainly the Android Phones. In addition, the Android phones allow endless customization not because the users do not like what they have but because each user has different requirements (which takes again back to the desktop!!!).

So, in my mind, Microsoft is now trying to imitate the worse of Apple without offering fantastic hardware and without offering compelling content. This has disaster written all over it.

 

[LTR]

I guess you can call me a tablet fanboy, I've been using Android, WebOS, and the Blackberry playbook for a couple of months now, and with that being said I believe that Blackberry, well RIM, has done the best job integrating full screen apps, and touch. They made the bezel part of the experience and that to me added a lot to the other all smoothness of the OS. There is no reason Microsoft can't fix the Metro UI and make it into a usable tablet OS.

 

[Mark Phelps]

While I admit to being somewhat of an "early adopter" (having run out and bought a Tablet PC back in the XP days), what I think really killed the table approach back then was a combination of high price and lack of public acceptance of the platform.

Today, with the phenominal sales of the iPad and the nearly ubqiuitous presence of smart phones (with folks using less and less of the actual "phone" features), a Windows 8 tablet, one that is prices and featured toward consumers, will most likely do well.

Where I live, places are selling Android tablets like crazy -- and those don't run Windows apps and force folks into using the "cloud approach". Given the same pricepoint an realtime performance as Android tablets, with the added advantage of running MS Office, with SSDs instead of hard drives, and really good battery life (e.g., 10 hours or more), I think you would have a hard time keeping Win8 tablets in stock, they would sell so quickly.

But then, I already admitted to being an "early adopter".

 

[Coke Robot]

I'll be the first to admit I like Metro design, but then again, I'm coming into this conversation already introduced to metro design LONG before the Windows 8 Developer Preview so I'm already used to it. I agree that making a desktop interface capable of touch input is ridiculous since it's just inefficient use of time of having to zoom in and out just to copy and paste something. Full screen apps are one thing, a touch desktop is another.

apple makes money from their services mostly since they're not even breaking even from their idevice crap. It's app store and itunes. But manufacturers using Windows have different license agreements with Microsoft than the consumer. You can buy a 300 dollar desktop with Windows installed and you can build the same desktop for somewhat less than 300, but you still need Windows. It doesn't really impact the price of a system. I have to disagree with you but android is a fragmented os with three different versions out there with the x.32 and x.22 versions in between. It's like having the choice of Windows 2000, xp, vista, or 7. It's ballistic. And also, android doesn't have the same user satisfaction rate compared to the Windows Phone 7. You don't user WP7 skinning out the metro interface like android users. Android users can customize, which is a plus, but at the end of the day it's just screens with grids of icons and random widgets in between with the default system buttons. The real reason why people customize that way is really because they don't like how it looks. Comparing that with Windows, you rarely see users skinning out their desktops to look something other than Windows.

I doubt users with reject it, I know enthusiasts will. I've shown the DP of 8 to quite a few people and told them of some features and they all think it's great. I had someone tell me that full screen IE 10 is "fantastic." I've shown some people the Windows Phone 7 and a lot of them think it's quite cool and sleek. I have a friend that distances herself from technology and when I showed her the WP7, it was literally like watching a little kid play with a new toy.

I see this situation like xp and vista. Xp was the work horse of enterprise with vista being more for the average user. I see that now with 7 being the work horse of enterprise with 8 being for average users. I would wait before making a final judgment of 8 based of a developer's build. The only major aspect we've seen is the Start Screen. We haven't actually been able to see what 8 really is. There's much more to come.

For Microsoft, they cannot stay viable by just providing an insanely good desktop experience when users are shifting away from that. I know, it's stupid how people have been swooned by apple with every stupid free app a dolt can download. The position Microsoft's in is do we try to tinker and fine tune Windows 7 or do we reinnovate a produce we originally innovated in? They chose the latter. Time will tell if that was a good decision. But considering that just a build of Windows that is intended for developers has been downloaded three million times, not including from torrent sites, interest is there. Users are intrigued, developers are interested. Plus, Microsoft's business model IS to ride many horses at once. They have products for enterprise, enthusiasts, gamers, accountants, teachers, consumers and the such. That's what made them be able to ride a decade lacking innovation and stay profitable. Riding many horses for Windows is a good thing. It's a contiguous system of Windows that will work together better than ios or android. Unlike the two, Windows can actually stay independent of an external system. It functions better than to two as well. And with half of the product that can be actually used just for touch, it's win for them.

Of course, you are entitled to your beliefs but even in this board, the user assessment is overall negative. Microsoft is trying very hard to have a consumer appeal and remain in the enterprise and it cannot achieve both of these goals, not with the present strategy. It will end up destroying both. With Vista (which I liked, by the way), they provided a huge opening to Apple and my guess is that Win8 will be also shunned by the users, providing now a huge gateway to Apple, Android, and other systems to even crack the enterprise space. Honestly, after 30 years, I am seriously considering abandoning Windows. Full-screen applications????? Heaven forbid. The whole idea of these last few years was to make the windowing interface great and now we are abandoning to go find a few deluded tablet users??? Come again?

Do you know how many times I have windows open of my browser and a document that I work with? Almost daily. I need a non-windowing browser like I need a hole in the head. And this applies to millions of professionals who examine information in one window and create documents in another. Killing usability to chase a few tablet users is a ridiculous idea. A really stupid one that would result to a disaster for Microsoft.

I have no idea as to why you like the Metro interface. For me, it brings up painful memories of task-switching interfaces of the pre-Windows world and it is as limited and as stupid as those. Nothing like a 30-year old idea to move sales again!!! It is really abhorrent. Of course, it is all a matter of taste.

Just to give you an idea, I needed to buy a new cell-phone recently. For the longest time, I had a Windows Mobile phone (amazing but true) although it was running the HTC's Sense interface. I examined all the new Mango phones (I am with AT&T) and the newer Android phones. I picked up the Galaxy S II Skyrocket running Android 2.3.6. It was not even a contest. The Android operating system was far more usable than WP 7.5. After using WP 7.5 for half an hour, I was actually tired sliding the interface and also ending up with a long list of installed applications. At the end, working with apps was not that different and, on top of this, WP 7.5 was and felt to be, far more limiting than either the iPhone and certainly the Android Phones. In addition, the Android phones allow endless customization not because the users do not like what they have but because each user has different requirements (which takes again back to the desktop!!!).

So, in my mind, Microsoft is now trying to imitate the worse of Apple without offering fantastic hardware and without offering compelling content. This has disaster written all over it.

I don't see how Microsoft is killing the Desktop user. I mean, if you don't care for full screen apps, just don't use them. The Start Screen can be used to organize your programs and see what you have installed better than the menu control. The Taskbar takes that role as well. I wouldn't put Windows 8 past the common user. If they see something new and shiny, it sparks interest. Look at apple's ipad, a big shiny itouch was all it took to get us to this point.

I understand you're a big desktop user, I am too. Literally, the first thing I do when I start up is launch about five different programs in Desktop. I launch the Weather, RSS, and Stocks app as well. That's just idle random time, that's not serious using. It seems you think that Microsoft is going to be abandoning the Desktop altogether to desktop users, that isn't true.

I like the Metro interface because it puts relevant information in a simplified, polished view. I mean, I enjoy watching the HTML5 video background in the Weather app when I see the week forecast. I don't need a window in IE to take me to an MSN weather site anymore. It's clean and usable. I also like switching between views, apps, and going into the Start Screen, the animations are of Metro design are quite different and new to what I'm used to.

I dislike android because I believe it's simply a jailbroken iphone with the droid being the quintessential android and other phones being like the descendants of Cain; disunified and hideous and unstable. I can't stand to use androids because there are three different versions out there with different navigations, different skins, and just flat out confusing. I find the Windows Phone 7 to be much better because not only does it solve that usability issue, it puts people and relevant information first. The interface is clean, different, and very fluid. Unlike android where it's an iphone interface on top of an old blackberry settings menu.

But then again, it's all a matter of taste. If you liked Windows Mobile and android, it seems like you tend for particular customizations. That's ok. But really, comparing interfaces, WP7 hands down wins. The average android user is marveled by it.

To add on to your comment about Microsoft trying to sell devices with Metro design so they can get WP7 users and such, apple has done that already. Their ipad and iphone have done the reverse. You can see a trend of people spending a good thousand dollars on mac crap because they were satisfied with those interfaces. They're just condensed version of mac os. There isn't a real reason why people are going to macs other than that. Windows is stable to the point where there aren't those performance or security concerns anymore like with vista. Interfaces matter.

 

[ADRz]

I don't see how Microsoft is killing the Desktop user. I mean, if you don't care for full screen apps, just don't use them. The Start Screen can be used to organize your programs and see what you have installed better than the menu control. The Taskbar takes that role as well. I wouldn't put Windows 8 past the common user. If they see something new and shiny, it sparks interest. Look at apple's ipad, a big shiny itouch was all it took to get us to this point.

I understand you're a big desktop user, I am too. Literally, the first thing I do when I start up is launch about five different programs in Desktop. I launch the Weather, RSS, and Stocks app as well. That's just idle random time, that's not serious using. It seems you think that Microsoft is going to be abandoning the Desktop altogether to desktop users, that isn't true.

I like the Metro interface because it puts relevant information in a simplified, polished view. I mean, I enjoy watching the HTML5 video background in the Weather app when I see the week forecast. I don't need a window in IE to take me to an MSN weather site anymore. It's clean and usable. I also like switching between views, apps, and going into the Start Screen, the animations are of Metro design are quite different and new to what I'm used to.

I dislike android because I believe it's simply a jailbroken iphone with the droid being the quintessential android and other phones being like the descendants of Cain; disunified and hideous and unstable. I can't stand to use androids because there are three different versions out there with different navigations, different skins, and just flat out confusing. I find the Windows Phone 7 to be much better because not only does it solve that usability issue, it puts people and relevant information first. The interface is clean, different, and very fluid. Unlike android where it's an iphone interface on top of an old blackberry settings menu.

But then again, it's all a matter of taste. If you liked Windows Mobile and android, it seems like you tend for particular customizations. That's ok. But really, comparing interfaces, WP7 hands down wins. The average android user is marveled by it.

To add on to your comment about Microsoft trying to sell devices with Metro design so they can get WP7 users and such, apple has done that already. Their ipad and iphone have done the reverse. You can see a trend of people spending a good thousand dollars on mac crap because they were satisfied with those interfaces. They're just condensed version of mac os. There isn't a real reason why people are going to macs other than that. Windows is stable to the point where there aren't those performance or security concerns anymore like with vista. Interfaces matter.

Let me clarify a few things:

(a) In organizing programs and workflow, the Metro-style start page is not efficient as the desktop. If you want an animated application for the weather (are you really kidding?) what is wrong with dozens of desktop gadgets doing just that and which do not require any serious amount of desktop place?
(b) It is visual unappealing. It is very boring and it lacks style.
(c) Its customizability is substantially less than that of the desktop
(d) It simply gets in the way. Moving out of the desktop brings up this lousy screen again!!! No way of getting rid of it.

Unlike you, I really like Android. ICS actually shows to MS what a great interface looks like. In fact, with ICS one can fashion a start screen that resembles Win8 and then some. By the time Win8 comes out, there is going to be a veritable flood of ICS tablets are ridiculously low prices. I just do not think that MS would find a lot of buyers for these tablets and if users do not embrace Win8, then MS would be buried not only at the desktop but also in the mobile space. If it collapses badly, I can see Google muscling up Android to take over the desktop and it may make huge inroads.

With Win8, MS is taking a stupid gamble by abandoning its base in going to hunt for consumers. It was done so with WP7 with very poor results. In the mobile space, it abandoned millions of users of WinMo in the enterprise and all of them essentially have moved to Android. Thus, while in the beginning of 2010, MS had a 13% market share (all WinMo), it is now at 1.5% with WP7!!! The reason is quite obvious. Far superior hardware, excellent software and great business tools (access to the file system and encryption). Plus, even with the Mango update, there is no support for high resolution screens, full HD video, and most importantly, LTE. And there is not going to be any support for these until well into the next year when WP7 would have to compete against many ICS phones and iPhone 5.

Thus, disaster looms for Microsoft. By forcing desktop users to be exposed to "Metro" in order to leverage its desktop dominance to the mobile space, MS is likely to lose it all.

 

[Colonel Travis]

I don't see how Microsoft is killing the Desktop user. I mean, if you don't care for full screen apps, just don't use them.

True, but if you're using 7 what's the point of buying 8? Getting rid of Metro makes it only marginally different to the typical user.

I dislike android because I believe it's simply a jailbroken iphone with the droid being the quintessential android and other phones being like the descendants of Cain; disunified and hideous and unstable. I can't stand to use androids because there are three different versions out there with different navigations, different skins, and just flat out confusing.

I've owned an Android phone for almost two years and don't know what on earth you're talking about. Haven't heard anyone use the word skins in about 10 years. Different navigations? I've used two major versions of Android and the differences were cosmetic and performance, never noticed a change in the way I navigate through stuff. If you get confused using any smart phone you shouldn't even have one - iPhone, Android, Windows, it doesn't matter. They're some of the most dumb-downed electronics out there. They all do pretty much the same thing now, although it's still easier to customize an Android phone and you have more hardware and carrier choices.

 

[cognus]

i'm not seeing it. there have to be real compelling reasons for even a midsize it shop to gear up to admin a new client platform. win7 is a hit, but it takes a LONG time for it to soak into the market.
and is there any indication out of MS that they really NEED win8 to go into the corporate/public it shops?

my bet is that tablets are nearing a leveling-out spot in the market. i am not seeing full displacement of notebooks/netbooks. I do hope sincerely that win8 is a 'win' on handsets - the phone market is still a mess imho.
android reminds me of the early days of windows, and iphone is not for the masses

I've read this this week and I think it's such crap. Largely due to the fact that some think that Windows 8 isn't suitable for an enterprise environment based on that Metro apps and Tiles change up a tool that has been used for 20 some years: the interface. That's great and all, but they need to realize that IT admins have the ability to limit access most likely to the Windows Store and can easily unpin or uninstall Metro apps so the main component left is a Start Screen and a Desktop, not an interface intended for tablet users. Those "predictors" need to realize that Windows itself is adaptable and the Start Screen as well...

Win8 will also be a flop in the tablet space. Consumers are gravitating to tablets worth $200 or less. This price point is simply impossible for Windows tablets. They would be left to compete with the iPad where they do not stand a chance.

I disagree with that part about the tablets. If ARM tablet makers can get their prices down to 200 or less, having Windows on that would be rather competitive. Of course the price for said 200 dollar tablet would be more 300 or so, but if that means having a Windows operating system that can do what android does but MUCH better and prettier, it can stand against the imaxipad. android tablet manufacturers are getting slaughtered by the ipad because android is such a cruddy system to use for a tablet. They'd much rather use a Windows product that people already know of and can use rather easily for touch. That's Windows 8, and I'm willing to bet that people would pay 300 dollars for a Windows slate versus a 500 dollar ipad.

For the enterprise front, Metro doesn't prove to be a hindrance if configured in such a way. It really doesn't matter so much I'd think. A metro app is designed to be full screen and integrate well with the operating system. If one were to transition a fleet of xp machines to a new operating system, 8 would be the most logical choice, there's the Windows ID login choice, fast user switching, better performance on older machines compared to 7, and the overall feeling of the best and latest software. Of course there are the user interface complaints initially, but when are there not?

 

[Coke Robot]

I don't see how Microsoft is killing the Desktop user. I mean, if you don't care for full screen apps, just don't use them. The Start Screen can be used to organize your programs and see what you have installed better than the menu control. The Taskbar takes that role as well. I wouldn't put Windows 8 past the common user. If they see something new and shiny, it sparks interest. Look at apple's ipad, a big shiny itouch was all it took to get us to this point.

I understand you're a big desktop user, I am too. Literally, the first thing I do when I start up is launch about five different programs in Desktop. I launch the Weather, RSS, and Stocks app as well. That's just idle random time, that's not serious using. It seems you think that Microsoft is going to be abandoning the Desktop altogether to desktop users, that isn't true.

I like the Metro interface because it puts relevant information in a simplified, polished view. I mean, I enjoy watching the HTML5 video background in the Weather app when I see the week forecast. I don't need a window in IE to take me to an MSN weather site anymore. It's clean and usable. I also like switching between views, apps, and going into the Start Screen, the animations are of Metro design are quite different and new to what I'm used to.

I dislike android because I believe it's simply a jailbroken iphone with the droid being the quintessential android and other phones being like the descendants of Cain; disunified and hideous and unstable. I can't stand to use androids because there are three different versions out there with different navigations, different skins, and just flat out confusing. I find the Windows Phone 7 to be much better because not only does it solve that usability issue, it puts people and relevant information first. The interface is clean, different, and very fluid. Unlike android where it's an iphone interface on top of an old blackberry settings menu.

But then again, it's all a matter of taste. If you liked Windows Mobile and android, it seems like you tend for particular customizations. That's ok. But really, comparing interfaces, WP7 hands down wins. The average android user is marveled by it.

To add on to your comment about Microsoft trying to sell devices with Metro design so they can get WP7 users and such, apple has done that already. Their ipad and iphone have done the reverse. You can see a trend of people spending a good thousand dollars on mac crap because they were satisfied with those interfaces. They're just condensed version of mac os. There isn't a real reason why people are going to macs other than that. Windows is stable to the point where there aren't those performance or security concerns anymore like with vista. Interfaces matter.

Let me clarify a few things:

(a) In organizing programs and workflow, the Metro-style start page is not efficient as the desktop. If you want an animated application for the weather (are you really kidding?) what is wrong with dozens of desktop gadgets doing just that and which do not require any serious amount of desktop place?
(b) It is visual unappealing. It is very boring and it lacks style.
(c) Its customizability is substantially less than that of the desktop
(d) It simply gets in the way. Moving out of the desktop brings up this lousy screen again!!! No way of getting rid of it.

Unlike you, I really like Android. ICS actually shows to MS what a great interface looks like. In fact, with ICS one can fashion a start screen that resembles Win8 and then some. By the time Win8 comes out, there is going to be a veritable flood of ICS tablets are ridiculously low prices. I just do not think that MS would find a lot of buyers for these tablets and if users do not embrace Win8, then MS would be buried not only at the desktop but also in the mobile space. If it collapses badly, I can see Google muscling up Android to take over the desktop and it may make huge inroads.

With Win8, MS is taking a stupid gamble by abandoning its base in going to hunt for consumers. It was done so with WP7 with very poor results. In the mobile space, it abandoned millions of users of WinMo in the enterprise and all of them essentially have moved to Android. Thus, while in the beginning of 2010, MS had a 13% market share (all WinMo), it is now at 1.5% with WP7!!! The reason is quite obvious. Far superior hardware, excellent software and great business tools (access to the file system and encryption). Plus, even with the Mango update, there is no support for high resolution screens, full HD video, and most importantly, LTE. And there is not going to be any support for these until well into the next year when WP7 would have to compete against many ICS phones and iPhone 5.

Thus, disaster looms for Microsoft. By forcing desktop users to be exposed to "Metro" in order to leverage its desktop dominance to the mobile space, MS is likely to lose it all.

a. Not very true. The DP of 8 is just the shell of Start Screen. The beta will allow much better organization. The Start Screen is literally taking program links out of being covered up in a folder into a bin, where you can see and find things better.
b. To some, yes. Overall, many people find it interesting, not just myself.
c. Customization isn't in the DP. Wait for the beta build.
d. Rejecting the Start Screen isn't the best of ideas until you know how to fully utilize its benefits. I can find programs that I don't have on my taskbar easier than in 7. It takes a hit of the Start key, a brief scroll and a click. Done.

I doubt Microsoft will have issues with selling tablets. If tablets are in the 2-3 hundred dollar range, which they are, buying a Windows tablet over an android is a better sell and a better buy. And no, if google peddles android to the desktop, that is the day I will die and the government has power and control over you.

The WP7 isn't a failure. It's done better in its first year compared to android's first year with MUCH less advertising. The Windows Mobile market wasn't that significant, even then, blackberry has been the flagship enterprise phone. android has made headway, but the WP7 has breached into that market as well. Even then, carriers are far more interested in peddling android phones because they're inexpensive on midrange to crappy hardware with three different, inconsistent, insecure versions of android. The android you're talking about is the Motorola Droid, not the LG android, or the Samsung android, or the HTC android, or the whatever android. Of course there are some that can do that, not a lot of people utilize those features. The idea that WP7s can't support high resolutions isn't true. The Nokia Lumia 800 as of now has the highest resolution, as of now. The platform has only been out in the market for a year and two months now. LTE is coming in the next few months. Microsoft can't code a platform to have those features if manufacturers aren't building phones with those features. And no, it's not going to be well into next year, it's going to be well into late January of next year, a month.

You're saying that metro is simply a full screen app. You need to look a little further than that. A perfect example of a desktop metro styled program is the Zune software. It's better styled than itunes, manages music better, has a better set up market, and is simply visually pleasing with the Now Playing visualizer. It's designed better for desktop users, while being somewhat usable with tablet users.

I don't think Microsoft's approach here is to make their mobile market stronger. They're going for most likely a unified approach. Windows on a PC, Windows on an Xbox, Windows on a phone, Windows on a tablet. I'd see they'll take the strengths of each device and code specifically for that. I also see them having different devices work together to use the other device's features, like connecting your phone to your desktop to make phone calls instead of having a separate desk phone. A PC can share media with an Xbox and the reverse, which is already done.

I don't know, I don't want to the shmuck still using xp in the year 2014 just because I can't adapt to newer changes and adapt them to my personal, PC use....

 

[Coke Robot]

This is what my Start Screen looks like. I have it as customizable as far as the build will allow. I don't see the Start Screen as obliterating the Desktop. I see it more as an extension of such. It has all my program icons, with their names, in grids. What can you find looks like that? A typical Windows desktop. And I use some metro apps that go full screen. What Windows programs do that? Games, video players, music players. Unlike those, some display relevant information.

 

[SIW2]

It is a matter of preference - I loathe and detest the metro ui on a desktop.

Ok for a tablet maybe, but I don't want it on on a desktop, or laptop for that matter.

 

[ADRz]

View attachment 2959View attachment 2960This is what my Start Screen looks like. I have it as customizable as far as the build will allow. I don't see the Start Screen as obliterating the Desktop. I see it more as an extension of such. It has all my program icons, with their names, in grids. What can you find looks like that? A typical Windows desktop. And I use some metro apps that go full screen. What Windows programs do that? Games, video players, music players. Unlike those, some display relevant information.

Do you honestly think that this is in any way visually appealing or helpful????? I am lost in a group of grey squares with no visual appeal whatsoever. Compared to the desktop, it looks drab. In addition, there is no way to include all the elements that I want in this screen. It is not usable and it is not attractive. But this is what happens when you design an operating system to be efficient in small screens (4 to 11''). This is by definition counterproductive for the desktop.

I amazed that you like it. Compared with the visual appeal of the desktop with icons, taskbar and gadgets, you have a blown-up phone interface that lacks depth and any kind of finesse or design appeal. Microsoft will find all this to its horror.

 

[ADRz]

It is a matter of preference - I loathe and detest the metro ui on a desktop.

Ok for a tablet maybe, but I don't want it on on a desktop, or laptop for that matter.

Let me second this with a passion

 

[ionbasa]

View attachment 2959View attachment 2960This is what my Start Screen looks like. I have it as customizable as far as the build will allow. I don't see the Start Screen as obliterating the Desktop. I see it more as an extension of such. It has all my program icons, with their names, in grids. What can you find looks like that? A typical Windows desktop. And I use some metro apps that go full screen. What Windows programs do that? Games, video players, music players. Unlike those, some display relevant information.

Do you honestly think that this is in any way visually appealing or helpful????? I am lost in a group of grey squares with no visual appeal whatsoever. Compared to the desktop, it looks drab. In addition, there is no way to include all the elements that I want in this screen. It is not usable and it is not attractive. But this is what happens when you design an operating system to be efficient in small screens (4 to 11''). This is by definition counterproductive for the desktop.

I amazed that you like it. Compared with the visual appeal of the desktop with icons, taskbar and gadgets, you have a blown-up phone interface that lacks depth and any kind of finesse or design appeal. Microsoft will find all this to its horror.

I find it visually appealing, its just a matter of preference and accepting change. I find the new start menu better than the ones in the older windows versions, I just don't like looking at a linear list of folders in a small space trying to find the program I need.

 

[ADRz]

I doubt Microsoft will have issues with selling tablets. If tablets are in the 2-3 hundred dollar range, which they are, buying a Windows tablet over an android is a better sell and a better buy. And no, if google peddles android to the desktop, that is the day I will die and the government has power and control over you.

The WP7 isn't a failure. It's done better in its first year compared to android's first year with MUCH less advertising. The Windows Mobile market wasn't that significant, even then, blackberry has been the flagship enterprise phone. android has made headway, but the WP7 has breached into that market as well.

You're saying that metro is simply a full screen app. You need to look a little further than that. A perfect example of a desktop metro styled program is the Zune software. It's better styled than itunes, manages music better, has a better set up market, and is simply visually pleasing with the Now Playing visualizer. It's designed better for desktop users, while being somewhat usable with tablet users.

I don't think Microsoft's approach here is to make their mobile market stronger. They're going for most likely a unified approach. Windows on a PC, Windows on an Xbox, Windows on a phone, Windows on a tablet. I'd see they'll take the strengths of each device and code specifically for that. I also see them having different devices work together to use the other device's features, like connecting your phone to your desktop to make phone calls instead of having a separate desk phone. A PC can share media with an Xbox and the reverse, which is already done.

I don't know, I don't want to the shmuck still using xp in the year 2014 just because I can't adapt to newer changes and adapt them to my personal, PC use....

Let me address the tablet issue first. There is no way that Microsoft partners can sell tablets in the below $300 price range. If this actually happens, it would only happen if Microsoft drops the price of Win8 to about $10 a license. If it does so, it would go bankrupt. There is also no way that Microsoft can demand $150 per license either. And it would find a hard sell to ask for that amount of money from desktop users while asking $20 -15 from tablet users. Many have pointed out that the economics of Microsoft's strategy are virtually impossible. So, they would have to really drop the price of a Windows license and with the move to the cloud and the tablets, their MS Office unit will start hemorrhaging money. Would you pay at least $200 for MS Office 2012 for a tablet? I think not. But it is going to be the same application, right? So, MS would be selling Office 2012 for $20 in their store and asking almost $300 for a shrink-wrapped version??? This is crazy. They are going to the poor house. By definition, Windows tablets (Intel) will be somewhere in the $600-700 range. ARM-based tablets may be cheaper but then they are not Windows, are they? With their terribly limited app support, why would anybody even bother to buy an ARM-win8 tablet?

WP7 and WP7.5 are failures, anyway you look at it. Very few consumers will pick up these phones. I have played for over 1 hour with one and then I went and bought an LTE Android phone (the Galaxy SII Skyrocket). Why? Because they are not exactly "smartphones". They are smartphones for dummies. Their customization options are extremely limited, and the moment you leave the original Metro screen you are presented with a long, long list of apps that you cannot organize in any decent way. Forget what the MS PR says. These phones are way below the usability and features curve and will be also runs.

I would not go into the extreme limitations of the new start screen. One user has posted his/hers screen above. Just see that the five little icons of the MS Office programs have taken over almost 1/8th of the screen. The screen is deeply unappealing. For many, it would resemble a quilt made from rags. It is a disaster. It is probably OK for a small surface, but why would I want to have this monstrosity in my desktop? Please let me know.

Please, do not give me here the same old song and dance that "we cannot adapt to changes". I will adapt to anything superior. I moved to Vista even when it was "dangerous" to do so because I realize the progress. I used Win7 from the early betas. So, if you want to be touching squares, this is fine with me. But do not make assumptions about others.

 

[ADRz]

View attachment 2959View attachment 2960This is what my Start Screen looks like. I have it as customizable as far as the build will allow. I don't see the Start Screen as obliterating the Desktop. I see it more as an extension of such. It has all my program icons, with their names, in grids. What can you find looks like that? A typical Windows desktop. And I use some metro apps that go full screen. What Windows programs do that? Games, video players, music players. Unlike those, some display relevant information.

Do you honestly think that this is in any way visually appealing or helpful????? I am lost in a group of grey squares with no visual appeal whatsoever. Compared to the desktop, it looks drab. In addition, there is no way to include all the elements that I want in this screen. It is not usable and it is not attractive. But this is what happens when you design an operating system to be efficient in small screens (4 to 11''). This is by definition counterproductive for the desktop.

I amazed that you like it. Compared with the visual appeal of the desktop with icons, taskbar and gadgets, you have a blown-up phone interface that lacks depth and any kind of finesse or design appeal. Microsoft will find all this to its horror.

I find it visually appealing, its just a matter of preference and accepting change. I find the new start menu better than the ones in the older windows versions, I just don't like looking at a linear list of folders in a small space trying to find the program I need.

Accepting change? Why? For change's sake??? If they ask you to walk around naked would you do it? Some change we accept because we have no choice but here we have a choice. I would accept changes that advance the state of the art, not the ones that regress it.

I do not understand you comment about a "linear list of folders". I do not remember any desktop that looks like this. Here is how my desktop looks.



I do not see any linear list of folders. The icons for the Office programs take a minute amount of space, and not 1/8th of the desktop as your start screen. And I think that the whole thing is far more appealing and far more effective.

 

[ionbasa]

Do you honestly think that this is in any way visually appealing or helpful????? I am lost in a group of grey squares with no visual appeal whatsoever. Compared to the desktop, it looks drab. In addition, there is no way to include all the elements that I want in this screen. It is not usable and it is not attractive. But this is what happens when you design an operating system to be efficient in small screens (4 to 11''). This is by definition counterproductive for the desktop.

I amazed that you like it. Compared with the visual appeal of the desktop with icons, taskbar and gadgets, you have a blown-up phone interface that lacks depth and any kind of finesse or design appeal. Microsoft will find all this to its horror.

I find it visually appealing, its just a matter of preference and accepting change. I find the new start menu better than the ones in the older windows versions, I just don't like looking at a linear list of folders in a small space trying to find the program I need.

Accepting change? Why? For change's sake??? If they ask you to walk around naked would you do it? Some change we accept because we have no choice but here we have a choice. I would accept changes that advance the state of the art, not the ones that regress it.

I do not understand you comment about a "linear list of folders". I do not remember any desktop that looks like this. Here is how my desktop looks.

View attachment 2961

I do not see any linear list of folders. The icons for the Office programs take a minute amount of space, and not 1/8th of the desktop as your start screen. And I think that the whole thing is far more appealing and far more effective.

I was referring to the start menu, not the desktop, the desktop will still be implemented in windows 8 alongside the metro ui.
See the picture there is a live tile to the actual desktop so it will still be there, the metro ui in my opinion should be made to replace the start menu.

The current start menu is in my opinion just lacking.

 

[ADRz]

I was referring to the start menu, not the desktop, the desktop will still be implemented in windows 8 alongside the metro ui.
View attachment 2962See the picture there is a live tile to the actual desktop so it will still be there, the metro ui in my opinion should be made to replace the start menu.

The current start menu is in my opinion just lacking.

Who is actually using the Start Menu to launch a program with so many other choices on the desktop. The problem with the Start Screen is that it interferes with access to the desktop as you well know. MS wants to replace your desktop with the Start screen. They want you to be looking at the Start Screen so that you would be familiarized with it and then go out and buy their tablets. They expect this Pavlovian response.

Now, honestly, do you really see the screen you have just displayed as appropriate for large monitors???? This is kiddy stuff!!!