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...

Originally Posted by Coke Robot

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...

I disagree. Windows 8 is totally irrelevant for the enterprise. The metro style interface is a hindrance and the rest of the minor improvements are not worth the cost and hassle of upgrading.

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.

Originally Posted by ADRz

Originally Posted by Coke Robot

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?

Originally Posted by Coke Robot

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?

Win8 in ARM is not really Windows. It would run nothing else but the Metro-style apps!! yikes!!! Who is going to buy them? Is Microsoft capable of creating the iTunes environment. I do not think so. Not in less than a year, that's for sure. Android tablets would be cheaper and have much more content. Kindle Fire (including the new enhance models) or Win8 in ARM? Is this even a contest? My personal guess is that Win8 in ARM is going to be a disaster of major proportions.

Win8 in Intel hardware for tablets would be too expensive for the average consumer. It is going to be an enterprise solution, at best. These tablets would be anywhere between $600 to $1000. Again, there would be competing against ultrabooks and I can tell you what will win here: ultrabooks. I do not see a winning scenario for Microsoft.

Read your arguments above and see why Win8 would be a failure in the enterprise. Why would one buy a system that one needs to work around some of its components? What are "full screen" applications doing in a windowing operating system? I depend on the windowing interface for dozens of the tasks that I perform every day. I need "full screen" applications like a need a hole in the head. They are a hindrance. You would see most corporations requesting Win7 on new machines, not Win8. Sure, there are some minor advances in Win8 but none of which (like the memory handling) that MS cannot enable in Win7 with a service pack.

Overall, my assessment is the same as most of the various think tanks. Win8 would be worse for MS than Vista. MS, instead of building on Win7 and delivering a robust enhancement of an excellent desktop system, it went totally bonkers creating a version mainly for tablets. Essentially, it is trying to push its mobile OS by making consumers aware of it in the desktop. It will not work. My guess is that it would be rejected wholesale. I have been enthusiastic proponent of Windows and have installed all the betas and previews since Win3.1 (in fact, since Win 1.0!!!) but this "vandalism" of the OS is just painful. As you can see from this forum, I am not alone. Most users, even here, give it thumbs down. And these are the enthusiasts. It would flop worse among the general public.

Originally Posted by ADRz

Originally Posted by Coke Robot

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?

Win8 in ARM is not really Windows. It would run nothing else but the Metro-style apps!! yikes!!! Who is going to buy them? Is Microsoft capable of creating the iTunes environment. I do not think so. Not in less than a year, that's for sure. Android tablets would be cheaper and have much more content. Kindle Fire (including the new enhance models) or Win8 in ARM? Is this even a contest? My personal guess is that Win8 in ARM is going to be a disaster of major proportions.

Win8 in Intel hardware for tablets would be too expensive for the average consumer. It is going to be an enterprise solution, at best. These tablets would be anywhere between $600 to $1000. Again, there would be competing against ultrabooks and I can tell you what will win here: ultrabooks. I do not see a winning scenario for Microsoft.

Read your arguments above and see why Win8 would be a failure in the enterprise. Why would one buy a system that one needs to work around some of its components? What are "full screen" applications doing in a windowing operating system? I depend on the windowing interface for dozens of the tasks that I perform every day. I need "full screen" applications like a need a hole in the head. They are a hindrance. You would see most corporations requesting Win7 on new machines, not Win8. Sure, there are some minor advances in Win8 but none of which (like the memory handling) that MS cannot enable in Win7 with a service pack.

Overall, my assessment is the same as most of the various think tanks. Win8 would be worse for MS than Vista. MS, instead of building on Win7 and delivering a robust enhancement of an excellent desktop system, it went totally bonkers creating a version mainly for tablets. Essentially, it is trying to push its mobile OS by making consumers aware of it in the desktop. It will not work. My guess is that it would be rejected wholesale. I have been enthusiastic proponent of Windows and have installed all the betas and previews since Win3.1 (in fact, since Win 1.0!!!) but this "vandalism" of the OS is just painful. As you can see from this forum, I am not alone. Most users, even here, give it thumbs down. And these are the enthusiasts. It would flop worse among the general public.

You say that you've used Windows since version 1. There are people that went from MS-DOS to 1. That's been the biggest change to an operating system since the graphical interface. There are some people that still hold onto keyboard commands though graphically would be easier. Windows 8 on ARM is like that. Going from commands to graphics must have been a serious transition but it was still an operating system, just that it wasn't called Windows. ARM tablets will obviously only run Metro apps, but there most likely will be a Desktop left, it just might not be used as much. That isn't such a bad thing. I mean, I know people that have literally told me they have never used the Start Menu in Windows 7 ever. That's a component of Windows they don't use so going to a Start Screen wouldn't be so bad.

Have you used an android tablet? They are just flat out awful for touch! It's the same problem as with the phones, there are many versions out there and many different setups and customizations. I wouldn't doubt the Metro App market, the Windows Phone 7 has been out for only a year, hasn't had a lot of market attention, but has more than 40,000 different apps available and this was coming from Windows Mobile 6.5 and in a year, that many apps out.

Intel I bet would work on lower powered Atom processors to beat out ARM, but Intel ARM systems would be expensive, Intel's Intel, price is in the name. NVIDIA and I think AMD are working on lower powered processors as well. If major hardware manufacturers are gearing their R&D for Windows 8 tablets to fulfill tablet manufacturers needs for a Windows tablet, that's something in itself.

In enterprise, some work around features of Windows, minutely compared to potentially 8. Some install software that at every restart wipes Windows of any changes. A major function of Windows is to let people personalize changes. With 8, some enterprises might embrace whole heartedly metro apps than others. Some might deploy Windows 8 tablets over ipads based off capabilities and software that people have used for literally decades. If you look at some examples of Metro apps, they can be used by shipping companies to track deliveries in an app that makes you feel like that device is solely built to track packages. Some companies might deploy that potential People hub app to keep in contact with clients, the list goes on and on. Metro isn't a bad thing, it's adaptable, like Windows itself.

As for Microsoft deploying Windows on a new form factor, look at laptops. They did that with I believe 95 or 98 because laptops were the latest form factor. And as with tablets, they got flack for being underpowered piles of poo. That was true, and Microsoft adapted Windows, like vista theoretically, to work better with laptops than xp. And with 7, they refined that process to work on netbooks.

If you look at some user data, people have shifted from wanting a Windows tablet to an ipad. Maybe because they perceive Windows on a tablet to be a desktop. I don't know about you, but using Windows 7 on a touch monitor is flat out a workout to get windows positioned correctly and settings changed easily. Those are 23 inch monitors, image that on 7 inches. Metro solves that. Windows 8 solves that. Microsoft has gone from a standing where at a time, their product dominated operating system usage at near 75 percent, it's now less than that. They're being beat out by apple and android over a product they pioneered in: operating systems. They can't strive in a market where people only want a Desktop interface, they know how to cater to both enterprise and consumer. They even talk about both in their blog about Windows 8.


I understand that Metro to some is too much. I understand that the enthusiasts here don't like it much. But these are some of the same people that didn't initially like the Windows 7 Taskbar because it didn't behave as previous versions. After a week, or two, or even a month, those same people wouldn't even dare to think about going back to xp. Metro will take time to fully appreciate. It takes time to understand that Metro design is about being modern, and integrated, and consistent. It makes an app for the associated press feel like it was built into the system, though it was not. It gives an all around feel of consistency, just like every other version of Windows, it was upgraded to stay fairly consistent. We don't live in times anymore for that. It's time for major changes and reconsiderations of a product based off a 16 year old model.

Oh, one last thing, Microsoft rarely ever puts new features in service packs, it's a clever business model!

There most likely will be a desktop but I had doubts about the Metro but I'm not totally against it. First of all, I don't use iPhones or iPads cause I can't multitask there and I don't use tablets either.

The biggest pain with this Metro is the multitasking issue. How do you multi task with this thing they way you do with windowed applications? A majority of users are now happy on how they multitask with the desktop, they can do a lot of things at once and this Metro thing is just looking like some accessory for a lot of desktop users who are used on the way the desktop behaves right now. Even things like uninstallers appear as a tile which is not making things neat. Yes, some people had trouble adjusting to changes but changes on Windows 7's taskbar was a good design for me and its wasn't far from the way the desktops of Vista or XP behaved. In fact Windows 7's taskbar was customizable to behave like Vista's or XP's. Smaller changes are easier to adjust to but such huge changes like the addition of the Metro is gonna be pain for more people especially those that have trouble accepting huge changes and people like me who don't use tablets or touchscreens.

The Metro doesn't seem to be too appealing on the enterprise either. People on offices are used with their keyboards and mice and it seems unlikely that normal enterprises with spend a lot of money upgrading not only the OS they use but also upgrading to touchscreen computers. That's too much for the budget. Its hard to imagine how to use MS Word or Excel inside the metro. Why spend on something you will need TIME to adjust to? On something that will make multitasking harder for you? If Windows 7 on these business machines can do all or most of the important things Windows 8 can, there's no or little point in upgrading, a reason why sales for Windows 8 may not be as booming as expected. They understand far better better than me about computers but they must understand that more people rely on desktops and laptops than tablets. The computing world is still more reliant on desktops and laptops than tablets and I expect that for some years to come. We can't stop change but changes will be more bearable if it happens one step at a time. Huge changes can be hard for us.

I had a feeling that the people who usually approve of the Metro are tablet+Windows fanboys.

If I will be allowed to suggest things I wanted with Windows 8:

1. Keep all the cool improvements on memory management plus the new apps like the improved task manager and native PDF reader. Also the system reset option is nice. We've seen them to exist, may they make more tweaks for everything else that needs tweaking.

2. Windows 8 should have at least a desktop dominant environment. If they are gonna put the Metro, make a separate button on it on the taskbar that takes you from the desktop to the Metro interface and vice versa.

3. Metro apps should have minimize and close buttons for task switching.

4. Windows should still be able to dual boot with other non Windows operating systems.

The build we saw is just a developer's preview but we have mixed reactions. Lets hope the beta will be a lot better for most of us. If there's anything certain, MS is putting a huge gamble on Windows 8.

[QUOTE]
You say that you've used Windows since version 1. There are people that went from MS-DOS to 1. That's been the biggest change to an operating system since the graphical interface. There are some people that still hold onto keyboard commands though graphically would be easier. ....[QUOTE]

This is the most common argument of the Metro defenders. Since I have been around too long, maybe I am resistant to change. Not true. In fact, I am excited about advances in technology. I just do not see Metro as any advance in technology. I see it as a tired, irrelevant, and misplaced effort in the wrong direction. I believe that it is totally irrelevant in the desktop and MS is trying to foist it on us to then push other form factors.

[QUOTE]Have you used an android tablet? They are just flat out awful for touch! It's the same problem as with the phones, there are many versions out there and many different setups and customizations. ..... [QUOTE]

Yes, I have used an android tablet. Some are excellent. Check the reviews of the new Asus Android table. By the way, I have a fantastic Android phone, the Galaxy SII Skyrocket. Far more advanced that WP 7.5 at this stage. I would have loved to buy a WP 7.5 phone but it is not "there" yet. In fact, in many areas, its usability is far lower than that of even a middling Android phone. I very much dislike highly managed environments like WP 7.5 with its closed file system and other restrictions. Android is much closer to a Windows person than WP 7.5 which is really a closed, consumer-oriented, limited system.

[QUOTE]In enterprise, some work around features of Windows, minutely compared to potentially 8. Some install software that at every restart wipes Windows of any changes. A major function of Windows is to let people personalize changes. With 8, some enterprises might embrace whole heartedly metro apps than others. Some might deploy Windows 8 tablets over ipads based off capabilities and software that people have used for literally decades. If you look at some examples of Metro apps, they can be used by shipping companies to track deliveries in an app that makes you feel like that device is solely built to track packages. Some companies might deploy that potential People hub app to keep in contact with clients, the list goes on and on. Metro isn't a bad thing, it's adaptable, like Windows itself. [QUOTE]

Sorry, I had to laugh with the above. A Metro-style app would never be able to compete with a desktop app like Salesforce. In fact, every single desktop applications would be far superior to these "full screen", brain-dead, Metro-style apps. Full screen? Are we now regressing to good old MS-DOS days? And you are supporting this idiocy??? I am astounded.

[QUOTE] If you look at some user data, people have shifted from wanting a Windows tablet to an ipad. Maybe because they perceive Windows on a tablet to be a desktop. I don't know about you, but using Windows 7 on a touch monitor is flat out a workout to get windows positioned correctly and settings changed easily. Those are 23 inch monitors, image that on 7 inches. Metro solves that. Windows 8 solves that. Microsoft has gone from a standing where at a time, their product dominated operating system usage at near 75 percent, it's now less than that. They're being beat out by apple and android over a product they pioneered in: operating systems. They can't strive in a market where people only want a Desktop interface, they know how to cater to both enterprise and consumer. They even talk about both in their blog about Windows 8. [QUOTE]

Working with a touch monitor on the desktop is nowhere near ergonomic or efficient. In fact, I believe it is a serious impediment in to doing some real work.


[QUOTE]I understand that Metro to some is too much. I understand that the enthusiasts here don't like it much. But these are some of the same people that didn't initially like the Windows 7 Taskbar because it didn't behave as previous versions. After a week, or two, or even a month, those same people wouldn't even dare to think about going back to xp. Metro will take time to fully appreciate. It takes time to understand that Metro design is about being modern, and integrated, and consistent. It makes an app for the associated press feel like it was built into the system, though it was not. It gives an all around feel of consistency, just like every other version of Windows, it was upgraded to stay fairly consistent. We don't live in times anymore for that. It's time for major changes and reconsiderations of a product based off a 16 year old model. [QUOTE]

Being around, I can tell you that the Metro-design is what the word says, it is actually old. It is much older and much less efficient than icons. It is plainly inefficient. In fact, if you see Android 4.0 you would see why Metro is simply stupid. Android 4.0 (ICS) allows for a far more flexibility with widgets (hubs), icons, that can all be mixed up, resized and interactive. It is a far more advanced notion of an interface than Metro. Metro reminds me of interfaces that had a brief time in the sun in the 1980's.

In fact, Android 4.0 builds on the promise of the Win7 desktop. In this desktop, with icons, the taskbar and the desktop gadgets, users could mix interface elements that provided some real advances to work. Now, with Microsoft trying to commit suicide, this flexible notion of an interface has been adopted by Android and Microsoft has regressed into providing a very stolid and (personally) visually unappealing inteface (full screen???? Really???)

What ADRz says make a lot of sense to me.

Why would a enterprise upgrade from W7 to W8, only to disable the metro interface and be left with what is basicly W7?
Why doesn't MS go the same route as apple and google and offer a WP7 tablet version? Makes so much more sense.

In the end "windows" and "full screen only apps" is a contradiction of terms.
We will have to see what happens. Only hope for MS that W8 will not be another Vista: good intention, bad execution.

Originally Posted by Boris

What ADRz says make a lot of sense to me.

Why would a enterprise upgrade from W7 to W8, only to disable the metro interface and be left with what is basicly W7?
Why doesn't MS go the same route as apple and google and offer a WP7 tablet version? Makes so much more sense.

In the end "windows" and "full screen only apps" is a contradiction of terms.
We will have to see what happens. Only hope for MS that W8 will not be another Vista: good intention, bad execution.

Boris, I had to laugh with MS descriptions of these full screen applications: "immersive"!!! I guess they could not think of a better term like "brain-dead". Well, a full-screen app is certain immersive as there is nothing else for the user to do!!! LOL