What I view on my two screens depends on what I'm doing, sometimes both screens are utilised, but with different programs open. I may have two mapping programs open, Garmin Basecamp on one and Memory Map on the other as I plan trips, convert from Garmin format to GPX. I might have Lightroom open on one screen and SilverEFX Pro on the other. Then I may be using multiple sessions of IE on two screens, when doing some research. And many other similar situations.
But then I don't always need the second screen and when I do, I can open whatever I need on a temporary basis on the second screen. The fact that I can't natively open any number of chosen apps and have then reside and arranged to suit my needs on the other screen is dumb. I just downloaded the trial version of ModernMix to see how it goes. It works quite well, but is unfortunately hobbled by the fact that the app developers aren't creating their apps for this capability, but for full screen viewing, as shown here (only the calendar app resizes correctly):
I'm absolutely gobsmacked that this sort of functionality wasn't designed into the Windows 8 app specifications from the outset. It really is nothing more than a mobile phone interface, totally ignoring the capability of large desktop/laptop and even tablet screens.
The core thing being it seems you are now used to basically 'channel surfing' your applications, and so the Mobile Interface doesn't bother you. For me, I only like viewing one channel(the desktop) and I adjust what i'm seeing at any given time. It gives a lot more feeling of control and fidelity with the applications I use. Its like the difference between an automatic and a manual transmission. As you say, we can agree to disagree on preference, but if I choose to go desktop, I only want to stay on that one channel. They simply need to keep the two interfaces separate so both of us can be happy.
The whole point of 10 years of WPF and XAML development by Microsoft getting built and separated from say C#, VB, VC++ was that it would separate the interface from the underlying code. As such, it shouldn't take any longer to simply compile up a program as a .exe than it would be to wrap it in a .appx.
To be quite honest, I can't make heads or tails of those dual monitor display images. To me they look just like one wide monitor, not two separate monitors, so I can't see where one finishes and the other starts. A simple photograph of the dual monitor setup would be easier for any discussion.
it's 3 monitors. the far left is an old 1280x1024. the central is a vertical 1080x1920. the right is a landscape 1920x1080.
It doesn't make things any easier.
One of the REAL problems with the mobile phone type of interface is how do you arrange the APPS in a decently "Dynamically" sortable order.
With Windows 8 at least the Search retrieves your desired app quickly but on an Android smart phone one has to scroll "Ad Nauseam" to find the app you want. -- I suspect that even for smartphones - especially with the newer larger ones the standard Scrolling will start to irritate users. -- It's OK say you've just got say a max of 10 apps on your phone -- but once you need to scroll for five or six times then it gets HORRIBLE --even on a mobile phone.
So I think even for Android phones the current "Tiled" interface will have to change to improve the user experience -- For a test just try installing say 30- 40 FREE apps on your phone and now start using a few at random -- the experience actually starts getting quite HORRIBLE - and this is on a PHONE so what Ms was thinking of with their hideous start screen I don't know.
I don't really miss the start menu as I use toolbars, the quick launch bar and some desktop short cuts - but the start screen is a DISASTER as it exists at the moment.
I'm actually surprised that even on a MOBILE the setup becomes basically unuseable or at least not comfortable as you increase the number of apps you have on your phone.
Anyway -- just try it -- the smaller the screen size on your smartphone the quicker you'll see what I'm driving at -- install say between 30 - 40 FREE apps and start testing -- apps are easily uninstalled again afterwards so you won't "break" anything.
The thing is, what the start menu, or MPI, could have been was so patently obvious from its very first use, that I keep repeating that it beggars belief that it came out as crippled as it is. It's not a case of 'potential' it's a case of why was it broken in the first place? Anyone that has used a desktop for even a few years accepts 'Windows' as a fundamental part of the computing experience. The MPI delivers a 'Window' experience.
I was using, until recently, a Windows 6.5 mobile phone. I found it very easy to arrange my most used apps in one screen (under Programs and kind of like the desktop). It also has a taskbar for features that are used more often, just like a Windows 7 taskbar and it provides a start menu equivalent for all those apps that I didn't use frequently (All Programs). This is very much like a traditional Windows 7 and previous methodology of menu arrangement.
So why the need for radical change?