Solved Here's what I think would fix Windows 8:

[pcRat]

All the major organisations that I know of have an SOE that is delivered to all desktops and laptops as a unified system. Individuals that require specific software place a separate installation request. The user has limited privileges for modifications/installation of software, organisation dependent. Some organisations lock down the SOE so tightly such that the user can't even modify the desktop background.

Updates are delivered automatically to each individual device, usually after working hours. If someone has a problem with their system, the IT department addresses that individual device either directly or remotely. That's been the biggest selling point about the Microsoft Enterprise system and all the IT personnel that I've know prefer the controlled SOE than one where the user can do what they want. I can't see why anyone would want to do things any differently.

Cheers

Ray

Sorry Ray but I lost your personal terminology for MPI & SOE. What are the again?

 

[Ray8]

All the major organisations that I know of have an SOE that is delivered to all desktops and laptops as a unified system. Individuals that require specific software place a separate installation request. The user has limited privileges for modifications/installation of software, organisation dependent. Some organisations lock down the SOE so tightly such that the user can't even modify the desktop background.

Updates are delivered automatically to each individual device, usually after working hours. If someone has a problem with their system, the IT department addresses that individual device either directly or remotely. That's been the biggest selling point about the Microsoft Enterprise system and all the IT personnel that I've know prefer the controlled SOE than one where the user can do what they want. I can't see why anyone would want to do things any differently.

Cheers

Ray

Sorry Ray but I lost your personal terminology for MPI & SOE. What are the again?

MPI - Mobile Phone Interface aka the apps/start menu; as I still haven't found the correct terminology (Metro, Modern, Bestest), I made up my own.

SOE - Standard Operating Environment, the system software configuration that an organisation implements, which includes not only the OS (and user privileges), but also the programs that are provided as standard for users.

 

[wins]

Instead of replacing the Start menu with "Metro" (or whatever they're calling it now), I think they should have replaced the desktop background and icons with it as a customizable active desktop, where you could still have your app icons, only they could be these more active icons as in "Metro," and they should have left the Start menu alone.

I think this would have gone over a lot better, and I might have eventually updated to it instead of deciding to skip Windows 8 altogether whenever I can, waiting for what's next and hopefully better.

So this is what I think might have helped Windows 8 be accepted. Let me know what you think. (But this isn't a discussion about the validity of my opinion one way or the other. Windows 8 isn't something "I need to get used to;" it unfortunately is something "I don't want to use.")

The closest you can get to that concept is by installing a classic windows start menu and Metro StartMenuModifier. With this set up it displays Metro full screen with the bottom toolbar revealed.

You can also get part of the Metro menu to display in a single row above the toolbar on the desktop it looks very weird because the Metro icons size remains the same.

And there is more....you can also create shortcuts from desktop to Metro apps. For example a shortcut with bingsearch: lauches Bing from the Metro interface. So whatever you suggested is not something impossible for Microsoft to have provided as an option for Windows8 users.


http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/16165-start-screen-add-taskbar-dock-desktop-windows-8-a.html

 

[Tepid]

All the major organisations that I know of have an SOE that is delivered to all desktops and laptops as a unified system. Individuals that require specific software place a separate installation request. The user has limited privileges for modifications/installation of software, organisation dependent. Some organisations lock down the SOE so tightly such that the user can't even modify the desktop background.

Updates are delivered automatically to each individual device, usually after working hours. If someone has a problem with their system, the IT department addresses that individual device either directly or remotely. That's been the biggest selling point about the Microsoft Enterprise system and all the IT personnel that I've know prefer the controlled SOE than one where the user can do what they want. I can't see why anyone would want to do things any differently.

Cheers

Ray

Yes, but those environments are not the best for every company.
Having a Standard Image pushed out then requesting software, yes, and there is always security based around the servers and such, but locking down a system so tightly is not the best thing for all companies. And there are many occasions it can be a detriment.

Lets take an off-site field person for instance. They have an issue on Friday evening with the PC that has a five minute fix, but the help desk (considered level 1) can't get that fixed till some time on Monday or maybe even Tuesday. That's ridiculous for someone who is on the phone, has the knowledge and can fix it. Now that person is out till someone CAN fix it. This happens often in a lot of companies. It can be extremely non-productive.

There are places that a locked down system is warranted, but not all systems need to be so tightly managed, those that are locked down, should only be able to be utilized between certain hours and a team that can handle an issue in a timely manner. This is not always the case in many companies. Productivity can be, and in some case is impacted on a regular basis.

Just for the record, it's not always crapware installed that causes issues, files do get corrupted, software does need to be reinstalled, try telling a user they are out for 4 or 5 days till a tech (with authority) can fix it. "it can't be that hard to fix can it?" Well, no, but I don't have authority to do so, I'm sorry, you will have to wait. So, I am dead in the water for how long? Someone will get back to you as soon as they can. ..... when in reality you know it's going to be days, not hours or min. That's just dumb, detrimental and unproductive.

You can't keep a proper, timely SLA in that environment very often.

for the uninitiated SLA = Service Level Agreement

 

[Fredledingue]

Most "criticism" of Windows 8 falls down to personal preference, not any real fault with the OS.

Please define "fault with the OS".

---

Conceptual mistakes, poor graphic design and annoyances are all "fault with the OS". When Metro become an annoyance to the point of having popular hacks to disable it then it's a "fault with the OS", IMHO.

---

"Personal preferences" are important factors too.

 

[Ray8]

Of course there are always exceptions. If you have 1000 field operators working independently, then clearly their needs are quite different to 1000 workers in an office environment. The latter do not need unfettered access to their PCs and technical support will be far more cost effective and efficient when supporting a unified SOE. The field workers, on the other hand, will likely have restricted access to the enterprise servers, if security, safety etc is of any corporate concern and transmitted data would be received in a secure fashion. That is currently the issue that all organisations are having to contend with when it comes to a BYOD.

 

[Dragon Drop]

This is just my opinion, but the fact that the Start Screen "replaced" the Start Menu doesn't mean that the
whole issue is just a question of which of THOSE TWO is better. To me, the Start Menu was one PITA because
of its maze of menus-within-menus, and the Start Screen is another PITA because having to switch back and
forth between it and the Desktop is distracting. I rarely used the Start Menu with XP and 7, and I rarely
use the Start Screen now. What I do, and have always done, is to use icons for everything I need; those I
use most often on the Taskbar, and the rest on the Desktop. I know where every one of them is, and for
everything I do, one click or double-click is enough. No switching screens, and no mazes either. And that
can be done in all versions, so there's no need to like this one, or hate that one, or upgrade, or downgrade.

Of course, it's that simple for me only because I don't use Metro apps. For those who need to use apps in both
environments a lot, the switching back and forth is a necessary evil. But that's why I think the idea of two
different user interfaces running simultaneously was a bad one. Of all possible arrangements, the one that
would suit me best would be to make the whole Metro interface a sort of "Mega-App" that is launched from
the Desktop and runs in a window. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Fredledingue]

If we used the Start Menu only twice a year in average, there is no reason why we should use the Metro Strat Screen any more often. Metro Start Screen is supposed to give easy access to apps and informations, but that's precisely what the taskbar and the desktop are doing. It's not the active tiles that will change the paradigme. Vista came with gadgets on the desktop... completely abandonned. Why is MS thinking that this time will be different?

Of all possible arrangements, the one that would suit me best would be to make the whole Metro interface a sort of "Mega-App" that is launched from the Desktop and runs in a window. But I'm not holding my breath.

Some poeple here already answered that this is technicaly impossible... until some geeks will find a hack to windowize Metro. That would be too funny. Perhaps by feeding the Metro RunTime a fake screen size and a fake screen position adjustment to fit an empty windows. Two registry entries to modify and here you are! You just need to find which ones... LOL.

 

[Ray8]

Some poeple here already answered that this is technicaly impossible... until some geeks will find a hack to windowize Metro. That would be too funny. Perhaps by feeding the Metro RunTime a fake screen size and a fake screen position adjustment to fit an empty windows. Two registry entries to modify and here you are! You just need to find which ones... LOL.

I just don't see why it should be impossible. The interface and apps are all COM based APIs, that means it should be possible to display the MPI in any which way you want. The fact that it displays (extends) to fill whatever sized screen you're using is indicative that these parameters were programed in from the outset.

It should have been just as easy to have it read the screen size and display the MPI at any set size, or any size you chose. It could just as easily have also been programmed to display in a separate window and be able to be moved around in one or more screens. It's just that Microsoft decided not to do so.

 

[Coke Robot]

If we used the Start Menu only twice a year in average, there is no reason why we should use the Metro Strat Screen any more often. Metro Start Screen is supposed to give easy access to apps and informations, but that's precisely what the taskbar and the desktop are doing. It's not the active tiles that will change the paradigme. Vista came with gadgets on the desktop... completely abandonned. Why is MS thinking that this time will be different?

Of all possible arrangements, the one that would suit me best would be to make the whole Metro interface a sort of "Mega-App" that is launched from the Desktop and runs in a window. But I'm not holding my breath.

Some poeple here already answered that this is technicaly impossible... until some geeks will find a hack to windowize Metro. That would be too funny. Perhaps by feeding the Metro RunTime a fake screen size and a fake screen position adjustment to fit an empty windows. Two registry entries to modify and here you are! You just need to find which ones... LOL.

Actually, them geeks did. The developers of the RetroUI software have done it. There's a YouTube video showing off the metro apps in a full immersive three screen setup, windowed apps on the Desktop, and a FULL three screen Start Screen.

 

[DavidY]

Of course, it's that simple for me only because I don't use Metro apps. For those who need to use apps in both environments a lot, the switching back and forth is a necessary evil. But that's why I think the idea of two different user interfaces running simultaneously was a bad one. Of all possible arrangements, the one that would suit me best would be to make the whole Metro interface a sort of "Mega-App" that is launched from
the Desktop and runs in a window. But I'm not holding my breath.

The switching is indeed evil, especially if you need to switch between Metro apps. For instance, last night I was trying to copy salient details from a PDF of a travel booking (using the Reader app) into different fields within the Calendar app. Something which is fairly simple in desktop windows is much harder when you can't see both at the same time and have to keep switching.

So my suggested amendment to your favourite arrangement (especially if people start writing apps for Metro) is to allow multiple Metro windows to be open in Desktop at once and visible in separate screens.

 

[Fredledingue]

If we used the Start Menu only twice a year in average, there is no reason why we should use the Metro Strat Screen any more often. Metro Start Screen is supposed to give easy access to apps and informations, but that's precisely what the taskbar and the desktop are doing. It's not the active tiles that will change the paradigme. Vista came with gadgets on the desktop... completely abandonned. Why is MS thinking that this time will be different?

Of all possible arrangements, the one that would suit me best would be to make the whole Metro interface a sort of "Mega-App" that is launched from the Desktop and runs in a window. But I'm not holding my breath.

Some poeple here already answered that this is technicaly impossible... until some geeks will find a hack to windowize Metro. That would be too funny. Perhaps by feeding the Metro RunTime a fake screen size and a fake screen position adjustment to fit an empty windows. Two registry entries to modify and here you are! You just need to find which ones... LOL.

Actually, them geeks did. The developers of the RetroUI software have done it. There's a YouTube video showing off the metro apps in a full immersive three screen setup, windowed apps on the Desktop, and a FULL three screen Start Screen.

Here you are! As you said: With time Metro will improve...

 

[Wrend]

Thanks for the info guys. It looks like some people are at least able to modify Windows 8 to their liking. (And yes, I'm happy for all the people that like Windows 8 as is as well.) I would have hoped for some of these to have been stock options, of course.

I think I'll still skip this one when and where I can for at least the foreseeable future.

In other news, I got a remote desktop client app. for my Nexus 7 to use with my Windows 7 Pro. computer. (Pretty fun to play around with. It even shows the Nexus 7's storage memory as a drive within Windows while remote desktopping in.) Kind of ironic: I can see where the "Metro" screen might have come in handy for some things on it, but even then, I probably still wouldn't prefer it in general. Oh well, to each their own.

I'll mark this thread as solved, because there isn't too much more for me to discuss on the matter. You guys are more than welcome to continue sharing your ideas and mod. information here, if you like. I'll stop back and check on it every now and then to see if there are any additions to the thread, and possible share my thoughts as well.

Best regards.