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

[Coke Robot]

I need to install Photoshop so I can explain this a bit better...

Honestly, if that was how Windows 8 was done, I think it wouldn't had solved many things. The main problem that I see in mockup ideas like this is the simple window management. Think of this, what if you had about five concurrent open windows on the Desktop. You need to open an app from the metro Desktop, and open Photoshop. You'd need to hit Show Desktop on the Taskbar, open the app (which I'm assuming is in a window), then manually open back your open windows, then hit Start to open Photoshop. It isn't ideal of a scenario.

This is why I feel it's better how it was designed in Windows 8, I'll extrapolate.

Think of the Start Screen, concurrent open windows on the Desktop, and Desktop background as separate layers. First, you have the Start Screen that is on top of everything, windows and Desktop. You click on the Desktop tile from Start, you enter into the windowed environment layer. Hit the Show Desktop button on the Taskbar, you enter into the Desktop layer to open a folder to launch a shortcut or photo file you're working on. Now, you may or may not have things on the Desktop, depending on how well you use the Taskbar. Back before Windows 7 Taskbar, people used to use the Desktop background to hold icons and folders, basically like a start launcher. Now, it'd be tedious to hit Show Desktop all the time to minimize your open windows, and then to open a program, and have to manually open all the windows back up. This is what the Start Screen is, it takes the elder purpose of the Desktop background, slips that lower layer and puts it on top so you only have one thing to click on and open a program, go back to the windowed layer with ease.

 

[Ray8]

I have no idea what you're attempting to explain, but everything that I have open is displayed in my taskbar and I can switch between any of them with absolute ease (or view a hidden one momentarily and instantly).

 

[Coke Robot]

I have no idea what you're attempting to explain, but everything that I have open is displayed in my taskbar and I can switch between any of them with absolute ease (or view a hidden one momentarily and instantly).

I'll need to Photoshop a screenshot so I can get explain visually. The problem is though that you have to rely on the Taskbar versus tapping or clicking on an open window's chrome. If you were to hit Show Desktop and minimize everything, you manually have to go and maximize everything. This becomes tedious, especially if you did it often.

 

[Coke Robot]

I have no idea what you're attempting to explain, but everything that I have open is displayed in my taskbar and I can switch between any of them with absolute ease (or view a hidden one momentarily and instantly).

Well, seeing as how it was found out, no they're really not. Windows RT is literally Windows 8 compiled to run on the ARM instruction set with an arbitrary software setting to prevent Desktop software installation. But, the Desktop software would need to be recompiled to run on ARM. Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

[Wrend]

I'll need to Photoshop a screenshot so I can get explain visually. The problem is though that you have to rely on the Taskbar versus tapping or clicking on an open window's chrome. If you were to hit Show Desktop and minimize everything, you manually have to go and maximize everything. This becomes tedious, especially if you did it often.

You can maximize everything using the same "button" in Windows 7 already too (this toggles back and forth from desktop to however you had your tasks/tabs before), or you could just click on the specific task you want, alt+tab, or optionally click on the Start menu and run whatever from there. Of course if you opened a new window, then it just toggles from that to the desktop.

This might not be as suited for tablets as it is desktops, perhaps, but I think having an OS that is primarily used on desktops and laptops be more suited for them makes sense.

As it is now for me, I use the Start menu primarily as my "desktop," which has a list of the programs I want there, and I don't even use my desktop nor display icons on it, then I have pop up menus on the task bar for my user files, the computer, my games, and my links.

Back when I was using XP I used a "web" page that I made as my desktop, complete with a Google search on it and links to various websites.

 

[Mystere]

If Windows 8 and Windows RT are completely different OSes, then:

Stop right there. Your problem is that you are making a faulty assumption. WinRT is *NOT* Windows RT. I know it's confusing, so i'll explain.

WinRT is the operating system runtime that runs Windows Store applications (aka Metro apps).

Windows RT is the ARM based version of Windows 8. Windows RT is identical to Windows 8, other than being compiled for the ARM processor. That means that Windows RT also has Win32, and the desktop.

Windows RT is named after the fact that it's primary purpose is to run WinRT apps (though it obviously can run Win32 apps, because Office is a Win32 app on RT, and there is a desktop).

You might find this article more enlightening, and authoritative (I know you refuse to believe anything I say, Ray. If I told you a stove was hot, you'd touch it to find out).

Windows Runtime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also this image may help you understand the relationship between Win32 and WinRT (more info at the end of this message, so that the point doesn't get too confused).

1. Why can't just Windows 8 be installed for those who do not want the RT experience?

Technically, it can. Microsoft has a version of Windows called Windows Embedded, this comes with a tool that allows you to pick and choose which pieces of the OS you want to use. It's used for embedded hardware that needs much smaller resource usage, and doesn't need things like graphical UI's and what not. They have another version of Windows called Windows PE, which is basically built with this tool (or tools similar to it. BartPE has tools that allow you to do similar things). Windows PE does not have Metro apps. But, it's also really scaled back and not extremely useful as a general purpose OS (it's used primarily for maintenance, installation, and what not situations).

Are our forum Microsoft representatives giving us the full story?

The full story is out there if you would bother to read it. But hey, maybe you like ignorance.. who knows.

Here's some more knowledge for you:

NT based Windows are based on what's known as a "micro-kernel" design. It's not a true micro-kernel, as it makes a lot of compromises for performance to overcome limitations in a true micro-kernel design.

Win32 is not the "native" operating system of Windows NT. The native OS is called NTOS, based on the NT Kernel. This is defined in the above image as "Windows Kernel Services", since the NT name was dropped over a decade ago. More information here: Windows NT kernel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This kernel supports a concept known as "Personality Modules", which are OS Subsystems, which means that these are OS's that run under the NT OS. Windows has, at various times, supported several different personality modules, such as the OS/2 module, The Posix module, the Inerix module (which became Services for Unix), and now WinRT. Win32 is also a personality module.

The important thing to understand here is that WinRT does not run on Win32. It's not like a VMware virtual box virtual machine, where it all runs on top of Windows. WinRT runs on NTOS, just like Win32 does. Therefore, both OS's run side-by-side rather than one on top of the other.

If WinRT ran on top of Win32, then there would be a lot more opportunity to integrate the two systems. The Virtual machine could just pass things through to the host OS and back and forth.. But instead, because these two OS's are completely isolated and separate (other than a very minimal interface layer that allows WinRT to "view" and interact with window stations in Win32 (Window Stations are isolated UI contexts, and are what allows Remote desktop to function). This is what allows some Win32 apps like IE and Chrome to present a "Metro" version of their UI, but it's basically just a viewer into Win32 like the desktop app.

This is not to say that Microsoft couldn't exert an huge amount of resources to tightly integrate the two. Obviously, with software, almost anything is possible. But to do so would mean, essentially, massive compromises to the integrity of both OS's to make such a thing work, and for what purpose? Win32 is eventually going to become less and less important as WinRT becomes more and more mature. It will, with each new version of Windows, subsume more and more of Win32's functionality until the two are on par or WinRT moves ahead.

Microsoft does not want to spend that kind of money on something they intend to get rid of. They did, in fact, do this once before. It was called Windows 95, and was a blending of the new Win32 and the old Win16. It was in fact very successful (too successful in many ways, as it took a long time to transition people off of it), but it was also a huge security nightmare, and a stability nightmare. This is not something they're going to do again, in my opinion. It was necessary then, but it is not necessary now.

 

[Ray8]

If Windows 8 and Windows RT are completely different OSes, then:

Stop right there. Your problem is that you are making a faulty assumption. WinRT is *NOT* Windows RT. I know it's confusing, so i'll explain.

WinRT is the operating system runtime that runs Windows Store applications (aka Metro apps).

Windows RT is the ARM based version of Windows 8. Windows RT is identical to Windows 8, other than being compiled for the ARM processor. That means that Windows RT also has Win32, and the desktop.

Windows RT is named after the fact that it's primary purpose is to run WinRT apps (though it obviously can run Win32 apps, because Office is a Win32 app on RT, and there is a desktop).

You might find this article more enlightening, and authoritative (I know you refuse to believe anything I say, Ray. If I told you a stove was hot, you'd touch it to find out).

Windows Runtime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also this image may help you understand the relationship between Win32 and WinRT

View attachment 15991

1. Why can't just Windows 8 be installed for those who do not want the RT experience?

Technically, it can. Microsoft has a version of Windows called Windows Embedded, this comes with a tool that allows you to pick and choose which pieces of the OS you want to use. It's used for embedded hardware that needs much smaller resource usage, and doesn't need things like graphical UI's and what not. They have another version of Windows called Windows PE, which is basically built with this tool (or tools similar to it. BartPE has tools that allow you to do similar things). Windows PE does not have Metro apps. But, it's also really scaled back and not extremely useful as a general purpose OS (it's used primarily for maintenance, installation, and what not situations).

Are our forum Microsoft representatives giving us the full story?

The full story is out there if you would bother to read it. But hey, maybe you like ignorance.. who knows.

Your reference states that WinRT is just another API, which have been in use for just about ever (in computing terms). That means they could be designed to display and perform in pretty much any way you like. The fact is that they have been deliberately designed to display the same on all systems, but could be easily modified to accommodate the differing needs of desktop users. Microsoft simply decided not to do so.

That said, I'm not interested in the technicalities of how the OS works, I'm interested in how it functions from a user point of view. Sadly, it seems that resorting to disparaging and abusive replies is a common trait of those who don't like critical comments of Windows 8.

 

[Mystere]

That said, I'm not interested in the technicalities of how the OS works, I'm interested in how it functions from a user point of view. Sadly, it seems that resorting to disparaging and abusive replies is a common trait of those who don't like critical comments of Windows 8.

Really Mr. Pot? Recall who cast the first stone here, calling me a "Microsoft representative" and imply that I was lying to you.

I will treat you the same way you treat me.

 

[Ray8]

Really Mr. Pot? Recall who cast the first stone here, calling me a "Microsoft representative" and imply that I was lying to you.

I will treat you the same way you treat me.

Where did I call you a Microsoft representative? I actually said:

Are our forum Microsoft representatives giving us the full story?

Note the plural. Note also full story does not imply lying. Are we having feelings of guilt?

 

[Tepid]

Also, Microsoft has said and signaled that they're leaving Desktop development behind

If this is true, they will lose a lot of users. Unless there is some miraculous and outstanding development going on that will render the desktop useless, and I doubt that.

If the desktop goes away, MS will go the way of Apple and Android, they will lose in the end. Linux will take off.

 

[Ray8]

Also, Microsoft has said and signaled that they're leaving Desktop development behind

If this is true, they will lose a lot of users. Unless there is some miraculous and outstanding development going on that will render the desktop useless, and I doubt that.

If the desktop goes away, MS will go the way of Apple and Android, they will lose in the end. Linux will take off.

If that is Microsoft's long-term plan, then all the arguments about Android, iOS, Chrome etc being useless (or words to that effect)are pretty moot; Microsoft is then clearly following the herd.

 

[Mystere]

Really Mr. Pot? Recall who cast the first stone here, calling me a "Microsoft representative" and imply that I was lying to you.

I will treat you the same way you treat me.

Where did I call you a Microsoft representative? I actually said:

Are our forum Microsoft representatives giving us the full story?

Note the plural. Note also full story does not imply lying. Are we having feelings of guilt?

We both know who you were referring to. The key word there is "forum", meaning you were talking about someone on this forum. Don't try and suggest otherwise, everyone here knows who you meant. So please stop the martyr act.

 

[Ray8]

Really Mr. Pot? Recall who cast the first stone here, calling me a "Microsoft representative" and imply that I was lying to you.

I will treat you the same way you treat me.

Where did I call you a Microsoft representative? I actually said:

Are our forum Microsoft representatives giving us the full story?

Note the plural. Note also full story does not imply lying. Are we having feelings of guilt?

We both know who you were referring to. The key word there is "forum", meaning you were talking about someone on this forum. Don't try and suggest otherwise, everyone here knows who you meant. So please stop the martyr act.

It's good to see that I am in your head as well.

 

[Mystere]

You really need to get over this obsession, Ray.

 

[Ray8]

You really need to get over this obsession, Ray.

When you go to sleep tonight, try not to think about what I might post overnight.

 

[Fredledingue]

They could have written Metro to run in 100x100 windows if they had felt like it.

Not only they could but they should. If their goal was to create an even experience with hand-held devices they should have run Metro in a small window floating on the screen, with a skin imitating the frame of a mobile phone. Like this:

 

[Coke Robot]

They could have written Metro to run in 100x100 windows if they had felt like it.

Not only they could but they should. If their goal was to create an even experience with hand-held devices they should have run Metro in a small window floating on the screen, with a skin imitating the frame of a mobile phone. Like this:

You're not understanding what the design term of metro is...

This is metro....

This is metro...

This is metro...

This is metro...

This is metro...

Noticing a trend here?

 

[Ray8]

Mobile phones and phablets?

 

[Tepid]

Also, Microsoft has said and signaled that they're leaving Desktop development behind

If this is true, they will lose a lot of users. Unless there is some miraculous and outstanding development going on that will render the desktop useless, and I doubt that.

If the desktop goes away, MS will go the way of Apple and Android, they will lose in the end. Linux will take off.

If that is Microsoft's long-term plan, then all the arguments about Android, iOS, Chrome etc being useless (or words to that effect)are pretty moot; Microsoft is then clearly following the herd.

Right, they would be shooting themselves in the head.

Linux may not be fully mainstream yet. But it would be well on it's way if MS goes that way.

 

[Wrend]

I guess I just don't get it.

For many (most?) people it is still easier and more convenient to do a lot (granted, not all) of their work, et cetera on desktop PCs, not handheld devices like tablets and phones, and Microsoft pretty much owns this market and almost seems to be trying to drive people away from this format (such as taking out even the option for a traditional Start menu on the stock released Windows 8 OS).

As I mentioned earlier, I have a Nexus 7. I use it for what tablets are good at, not as my PC, and I use my PC for what PCs are good at. There is some overlap, of course, but they are still largely used for different things, and they have different user interfaces and I/O methods to better suit those different things. The "Metro" style GUI just isn't very well suited to desktop PCs as is (in my opinion, of course), but I think it could have been incorporated better into a more traditional and desktop-friendly GUI (hence the main reason I started this thread).

...

Tepid, I have considered going the way of Linux myself (nothing against Microsoft and more traditional Windows versions such as 2000, XP, and 7, which I consider to be topnotch OSs), but I'm leery of hardware and software support and compatibility issues.

...

And guys, could we please try and keep the personal banter to a minimum in this thread? It isn't constructive to the conversation. Thanks.