Metro Whining and Other Windows 8 Madness

I don't care much about the Metro name change brouhaha. I couldn't care less except for the fact that I have to change some of the Metro references in some writing I've done for upcoming pieces on Windows Server 2012. Frankly, I don't care much about the Metro interface at all—I've been using Windows 8 client and Server 2012 extensively now, for almost six months.

There is nothing in Metro I can find that impedes the Windows user experience with which I am familiar. I have not had any device driver issues as of yet (either on the Windows 2012 Server side or the Windows 8 client side) and, if anything, I feel that the Metro-ish UI lends to a greater desktop customization than ever before, and I mean serious customization that goes well beyond placing an image of cute kittens on the desktop.

But people care about Metro very much and not in a care because they love it way, a care more as if Metro is akin to the village Frankenstein people would hunt down and kill if it could walk way.

Even here, in the typically peaceful PCMag Labs, there are two clear cut sides: anti-Metro and while I wouldn't exactly say pro-Metro there are those of who feel that the Metro UI is being irrationally demonized. Even Sascha Segan, my colleague who I am usually pretty much in lock-step agreement with on technology matters, outlined his grievances against Metro in a recent column.

Here's why I think a lot of the Metro criticism is just hysteria.....

Read more at:
Metro Whining and Other Windows 8 Madness | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

 

[Soundtweaker]

I have to say , her colleague is spot on:

If Microsoft continues down this path, the strategy will backfire, and PC owners with a choice will likely skip this version of Windows, much as they did with ME and Vista.

Agreed, that is my plan. Stick with Windows 7. No real benefit for me of 8.

No real benefit? Virtually every part of Win7 has been improved in Win8. Do some research.

 

[Soundtweaker]

Point out comments where people have complained about actual improvements:

• RAM usage
• Speed
• QoS management
• ReFS
• Storage Spaces
• Windows To Go
• etc.

RAM usage. I guess it's a bit lower in Windows 8, but with 4GB or more or RAM in Windows 7, it's not like I was really running out. And running on 5% less RAM with Windows 8 is not likely going to make it or break it.

Speed. Not seeing much difference, like I said before, I run with an 80GB SSD for my OS, I turn off hibernate to save disk space. The Hybrid boot is lost on me. No tangible gains.

Storage Space. In theory I like the concept. but I'm leary that if my OS were to crash, would I be able to take my 2-3-4 drive collection, plug it into another machine and be able to mount it, and get access to my data. This is something I actually plan to test soon with a VM.

Windows To Go: Enterprise only, not useful for the consumer.

Try doing some real CPU intensive work and you'll see the difference.

 

[pparks1]

I have to say , her colleague is spot on:

Agreed, that is my plan. Stick with Windows 7. No real benefit for me of 8.

No real benefit? Virtually every part of Win7 has been improved in Win8. Do some research.

I have done research and i've used the releases extensively. For what I do with a computer, I don't see many benefits worthy of spending $40 on it. It's got some nice features, none of which I cannot continue to live without. And I'm more or less annoyed and uninterested in the entire Metro interface and apps on my PC and the lack of a start button is just flat out annoying.

So, please share with me all of these improvements of Windows 8 that for me would be advantageous please?

 

[Soundtweaker]

Well if all you do is check email and watch you tube vids. Just get a tablet.

 

[pparks1]

Well if all you do is check email and watch you tube vids. Just get a tablet.

Who said that is what I do with my computer? I do have a tablet, and if those were the tasks I frequently did, there is a chance that I would actually use my tablet a bunch more than I do.

Any other advantages that I might be missing that you can offer? The items you mention above would actually be more ideal inside of the Windows 8 apps/Metro apps.

 

[pparks1]

Try doing some real CPU intensive work and you'll see the difference.

I run virtual machines, I render video files, I mix audio from time to time, and I play video games. I've not found conclusive evidence that the new features in Windows 8 really improve much upon these areas.

Some of these benchmarks here support my findings
Windows 8 Preview Beats Windows 7 in Most Performance Tests | PCWorld

As you can see in content creation, Windows 7 was just a bit faster. And office productivity is a bit lacking too.

 

[Mustang]

• RAM usage
• Speed
• QoS management
• ReFS
• Storage Spaces
• Windows To Go
• etc.

Try doing some real CPU intensive work and you'll see the difference.

So why aren't MS giving us all these improvements in SP2 for Win7, instead of making us endure Metro Maonster to get them?

With hi-performacne 8 thread CPU and mobo, linked SLI GTX graphics cards, SATA3 SSD HD and 12GB RAM, I can simultaneously run 7, 8 or more video clips on different windows from Youtube; watch live TV on TV card, and type in a Word document, while transferring photos to my home theatre Set Top Box ... and Taskmanager/Performance shows only 5 or 6 threads running and hardly raising a ripple!

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
the only things I really need Windows at all for (any flavour) is running OFFICE and PHOTOSHOP. I've never found any of the alternatives to Office any good -- they might be 90% compatable but they aren't 100% and always lack a missing feature or two --especially EXCEL.

I'll probably go back to using LINUX again on the desktop with a Virtual machine for photoshop and office.

Metro is an abomination for office / video / MySQL type of stuff. Fine for tablets and mobile phones - which is probably where metro will finally end up.

W8 definitely boots quicker - but who cares about that anyway and I like the Windows to Go feature - but is easy enough to create a bootable Linux system on a USB and have a Windows VM on it if you really need a "Portable" Windows system.

The Windows 8 HYPER-V looks quite interesting - but I'd probably use a server if I wanted to use Virtual Machines in that way.

Having tried W8 I'm not going to install it at all on a permanent basis -Windows 2012 Server is OK though - you don't have to start metro at all if you don't enable "Desktop experience" and can even be installed without a GUI.

The whole idea of having Metro in any shape or form on a Server is so ludicrously Bonkers you have to wonder what sort of managers are employed that can even THINK of this type of stuff -(Acc****re again !!! --they are usually good at hosing stuff up -- and would easily qualify for an Olympic Gold for the largest screw up in I.T history) .

If you are running W7 and happy with it there is utterly no need to upgrade to W8. The main problem will be those who buy computers with this stuff already installed on it. I'm sure there will be a whole slew of individuals wanting a "Downgrade" to W7.

Ms have really shot themselves in the foot this time.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Colonel Travis]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Jimbo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ixnay on the Etromay. You wanna get sued and lose your job and your house, or your cats if you have any, or your goldfish if you have any, or your horses if you have any, or....... worse?!?!?!?!?!

 

[ksdixon]

I haven't used the Start Menu itself for years. If Vista had the little search box, then I haven't used it since Vista. I only use that awesome searchbox. I WISH the Start Screen in 8 wouldn't separate my results into files/aps/settings the way it does because it's my biggest pet peeve with Windows 8, but I suppose I that over time will learn to tolerate it. Especially since something strange has been happening lately, in that the more I use Classic Shell for the old Start Menu (which can't add files to the search results, unfortunately), the more I don't like the Start Menu and being confronted with all those folders. After I recently took the time to customize my Start Screen with different columns for different things, I like it a lot better. My columns go like this:

1. Most frequently used programs (media player, firefox, notepad, utorrent etc.)

2. Lesser used programs so that I don't have to go searching for them (adobe photoshop, emule, snipping tool etc.)

3. Computer Security/Performance stuff (ccleaner, defraggler, malwarebytes, microsoft secuirty essentials suite, revo uninstaller pro, spybot:S&D, spywareblaster)

4. I haven't yet set-up the 4th column, but it will be: Control Panel Settings/Destination Shortcuts (CP areas that I actually visit, like Network Sharing Center, Power Options, User Accounts; and links to areas of the C: Drive such as Program Files, Windows, System32, Themes).

Meanwhile, whilst I'm not going into Metro to access this Start Screen (which I suspect I will come to love more and more), I am enjoying the improvements to the Desktop area, such as the new copy popup dialogue and management.

 

[lehnerus2000]

That's a good question

So why aren't MS giving us all these improvements in SP2 for Win7, instead of making us endure Metro Maonster to get them?

That's a good question.

When are we going to see W7 SP2?

The whole idea of having Metro in any shape or form on a Server is so ludicrously Bonkers you have to wonder what sort of managers are employed that can even THINK of this type of stuff -(Acc****re again !!! --they are usually good at hosing stuff up -- and would easily qualify for an Olympic Gold for the largest screw up in I.T history) .

Marketing.

 

[Max Peck]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Jimbo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ixnay on the Etromay. You wanna get sued and lose your job and your house, or your cats if you have any, or your goldfish if you have any, or your horses if you have any, or....... worse?!?!?!?!?!

 

[TerryE]

Parks1, I agree with you and for pretty much the same reasons.

Regarding ISO mounting, a point: Windows Explorer can open and work with zip archives but I still use a free third-party tool for most of those because it can open a variety of formats. I use a third-party tool to mount ISO images: I have never thought to myself "I wish the OS would do this for me." A lot of tools like that are very easy to install and use: I rarely ever think much about them once I've installed them. They're easy to install, and they work. That's what matters.

There just isn't enough there to excite me. I have a TechNet subscription, so it's not about $40, but at best Win8 will run only as a VM on my Win7 machine. Win8 doesn't do anything fo rme that I can't do with Win7, and in fact it removes the start menu and Aero interface that I really like about Win7.

 

[SIW2]

Seems to me the problem they have is they don't get product management.

A product manager has to understand the consumers wants and needs. It is a marketing role essentially, it helps if you also know just enough tech to communicate with the engineers.

That is what Apple do so well.

So why aren't MS giving us all these improvements in SP2 for Win7, instead of making us endure Metro Maonster to get them?

That's a good question.

When are we going to see W7 SP2?

The whole idea of having Metro in any shape or form on a Server is so ludicrously Bonkers you have to wonder what sort of managers are employed that can even THINK of this type of stuff -(Acc****re again !!! --they are usually good at hosing stuff up -- and would easily qualify for an Olympic Gold for the largest screw up in I.T history) .

Marketing.

 

[pparks1]

Regarding ISO mounting, a point: Windows Explorer can open and work with zip archives but I still use a free third-party tool for most of those because it can open a variety of formats. I use a third-party tool to mount ISO images: I have never thought to myself "I wish the OS would do this for me." A lot of tools like that are very easy to install and use: I rarely ever think much about them once I've installed them. They're easy to install, and they work. That's what matters.

The only real reason that I notice is because I use Linux distros and all of them have the ability to mount ISO's natively. Also, since I test so much with VM's and I can mount an ISO with the VM software, then having an ISO mounted in a VM is super easy. It's just a pain when I install Windows on a physical machine and then have to mount an iso, that I stop and say "Ooops, gotta go download something to mount this".

Like you said, getting a 3rd party tool to do it, is simple and no big deal. It will be nice to be able to do it without the 3rd party tool, but this isn't really enough to bring me to Win8.

There just isn't enough there to excite me. I have a TechNet subscription, so it's not about $40, but at best Win8 will run only as a VM on my Win7 machine. Win8 doesn't do anything fo rme that I can't do with Win7, and in fact it removes the start menu and Aero interface that I really like about Win7.

Yes, completely agree. It's just not my preference.

 

[Mustang]

There just isn't enough there to excite me. I have a TechNet subscription, so it's not about $40, but at best Win8 will run only as a VM on my Win7 machine. Win8 doesn't do anything fo rme that I can't do with Win7, and in fact it removes the start menu and Aero interface that I really like about Win7.

Although I will buy the $39 upgrade and use it over XP to load on a spare machine, when I get one, just so I'm up to speed if SP1 for Win8 accomodates my preferences. In the meantime I hope and pray for SP2 on Win7.

 

[pparks1]

In the meantime I hope and pray for SP2 on Win7.

Why, are you having significant issues or is there some technology that you are really hoping that Windows 7 gets?

 

[Mustang]

In the meantime I hope and pray for SP2 on Win7.

Why, are you having significant issues or is there some technology that you are really hoping that Windows 7 gets?

No I'm not having issues with Win7; it runs just fine. In fact all the bugs seem to have been ironed out. However, I'm hoping that Win7 will get a SP2 whcih includes the improvents in performance in the Win8 OS, so we can have those benefits without having to pay for Metro development/marketing costs in order to get them.

Why pay for something you won't use, (meaning Metro, Apps, touch screen, etc,), and lose existing features you want, (meaning direct boot to desktop and legacy start menu), to get the basic OS improvements, which IMHO should be included in a SP2?

 

[tcman50]

New features of Windows 8;

> faster start up times
> closes apps automatically
> can mount .iso files
> built-in anti-virus
> lock screen
> arm support
> future refs file system
> cloud computing
> apps store
> multiple monitor support
> copy,rename,delete improvements
> window scaling
> easy restore
> windows to go
> usb 3.0 support

..............................

 

[SIW2]

I'm hoping that Win7 will get a SP2 whcih includes the improvents in performance in the Win8 OS, so we can have those benefits without having to pay for Metro development/marketing costs in order to get them.

I doubt it.

They want you to buy the new one.


New features of Windows 8;

> faster start up times - only notice with hybrid boot - I never use that since I multiboot.
> closes apps automatically - not for me - they hang aroung unwanted in taskmgr
> can mount .iso files - I need a proper iso handler anyway - makes no difference to me
> built-in anti-virus - better than nothing - but I will install my preferred a/v anyhow.
> lock screen- damn nuisance
> arm support
> future refs file system
> cloud computing - I already have that - no problem using skydrive, etc on win7
> apps store - couldn't care less - except maybe on a portable entertainment device
> multiple monitor support
> copy,rename,delete improvements
> window scaling
> easy restore - not really, again better than nothing, but any one past beginner stage will use their preferred imaging program.
> windows to go - only for Enterprise customers (allegedly)
> usb 3.0 support - slightly more convenient than installing the drivers.