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

 

[pparks1]

New features of Windows 8;

> faster start up times - doesn't help me as I run off an SSD, with hibernation disabled to save space
> closes apps automatically - are you talking about feature that suspends apps "if" you run low on system resources?
> can mount .iso files - yep, but we've all been doing it for years with small 3rd party apps.
> built-in anti-virus - that's nice, 1 less thing to install at os install time.
> lock screen - I've always had the ability to lock the screen from XP onwards.
> arm support - ok if you need low power computing.
> future refs file system - i'm not going to hold my breath for this one. Remember, WinFS????
> cloud computing - possible on just about anything.
> apps store - not interested yet at all.
> multiple monitor support - it's better than previous versions of Windows..but multiple monitors has been possible forever now.
> copy,rename,delete improvements - unsure I know about these, haven't seen much difference.
> window scaling - are you talking about TCP IP window scaling.
> easy restore - very very basic. Won't replace our imaging tools, only works if you can boot into OS.
> windows to go - not really excited about this, don't really see the value for me personally.
> usb 3.0 support - another nice built-in without driver install. But not an exclusive to Windows 8.


I'm just not terribly excited. Most features are marginal for me.

 

[geddeeee]

Jim

One could ask, why did Microsoft ruin such a great OS upgrade with the metro crap then. Metro is SO BAD (for a certain section of people, you know, those people that USE their computers) that almost nothing else matters. If you can't use your machine any more, who cares what other more subtle improvements there are?!?

MICROSOFT did that, not the users...

Yeah if it weren't for Metro destroying the interface (Customisable my you-know-what, that guy doesn't even begin to understand what a customised desktop is to have said that) we'd all be jumping for joy!

I don't understand the problem. 1 click and the Whatever (Metro) screen is gone. You can do everything on the desktop to USE your computer just like you have for years. Fast booting, task manager, and some other features are nice additions. No strong reason to upgrade from windows 7 but no harm in doing it either.

Totally agree. I think it IS worth upgrading. Windows 8 is noticeably quicker. The filing system is great. Nice and speedy.

Everyone is 'fixated' on the Metro UI. So what??? One click - Desktop. Or install Classic Menu and Start is back and boots to the desktop directly.

Stay with Win 7 if you want. Leave us who enjoy and use Windows 8 to enjoy it!!!!

 

[TerryE]

Everyone is 'fixated' on the Metro UI. So what??? One click - Desktop. Or install Classic Menu and Start is back and boots to the desktop directly.

Stay with Win 7 if you want. Leave us who enjoy and use Windows 8 to enjoy it!!!!

No guarantee that Classic Menu will work with RTM. From what I saw of it earlier, it was close, but not a total match for the classic start menu.

It isn't just about the new UI, though that's a big point for most folks.

Either way people go, it makes no difference to me. I don't have anything personal in the game. I'm one of the folks planning to stay with Win7 but I'll run Win8 as a VM and play with it that way. Some folks want to drop a fresh copy of Win8 on their machine and I'm happy for them if that's their decision.

To say "leave us to enjoy it" is to say "just be quiet and go away, I don't want to hear your opinion" - I hope that's not what you really meant.

 

[geddeeee]

Everyone is 'fixated' on the Metro UI. So what??? One click - Desktop. Or install Classic Menu and Start is back and boots to the desktop directly.

Stay with Win 7 if you want. Leave us who enjoy and use Windows 8 to enjoy it!!!!

No guarantee that Classic Menu will work with RTM. From what I saw of it earlier, it was close, but not a total match for the classic start menu.

It isn't just about the new UI, though that's a big point for most folks.

Either way people go, it makes no difference to me. I don't have anything personal in the game. I'm one of the folks planning to stay with Win7 but I'll run Win8 as a VM and play with it that way. Some folks want to drop a fresh copy of Win8 on their machine and I'm happy for them if that's their decision.

To say "leave us to enjoy it" is to say "just be quiet and go away, I don't want to hear your opinion" - I hope that's not what you really meant.

No I didn't mean, I don't want to hear your opinion. LOL!!!

Well Classic Menu DOES work in RTM. It's not an exact copy, but all the familiar elements are there. In fact all my programs work in Win 8. I have yet to come across a problem. I had a lot more problems when moving to Win 7.

I'm mainly annoyed with people who haven't yet tried Win 8 RTM, and are already saying, "It's crap. Metro UI... Blah blah!!!"

This OS is rock solid. I think MS need to be applauded for trying to improve performance. (Not talking about that old chestnut, Boot time!!! Ugh!!!). I'm not an MS fanboy either.
The filing system especially is lightning fast. Everything works.

The same situation occurred when Win 7 was released. The 'IT Experts' slamming it etc.

Win 8 was going to have Metro UI anyway. Nothing wrong with MS trying to integrate the OS and Windows Phone. Apple did it, so why not MS.

I'm sure that opinions will change once people actually use it and see that it is QUICK!!!

 

[TerryE]

I'm sure it's fine for folks who have come to like it. I hav to say that once I got used to the interface and the new ways of doing things my opinion improved, but for other several reasons I'm not going with it as my primary OS.

I also would not expect to see it in the typical Enterprise environment for a long time to come, if ever at all. Time will tell, of course, but any major change to the standard desktop environment in an enterprise can take a very long time. We're just getting people to Windows 7 from XP, and I remember the work and time it took for the whole company to move to XP from Win2000.

So, enjoy it, have fun with it!

 

[sgage]

Everyone is 'fixated' on the Metro UI. So what??? One click - Desktop. Or install Classic Menu and Start is back and boots to the desktop directly.

Stay with Win 7 if you want. Leave us who enjoy and use Windows 8 to enjoy it!!!!

No guarantee that Classic Menu will work with RTM. From what I saw of it earlier, it was close, but not a total match for the classic start menu.

It isn't just about the new UI, though that's a big point for most folks.

Either way people go, it makes no difference to me. I don't have anything personal in the game. I'm one of the folks planning to stay with Win7 but I'll run Win8 as a VM and play with it that way. Some folks want to drop a fresh copy of Win8 on their machine and I'm happy for them if that's their decision.

To say "leave us to enjoy it" is to say "just be quiet and go away, I don't want to hear your opinion" - I hope that's not what you really meant.

Classic Shell works fine on the RTM - I'm running it right now, no problems.

 

[Mustang]

For me there are two sticking points with Win8; and it's not just a case of preferences, but Microsoft attitude.

1. Why haven't the improved performance aspects of Win8 been offered as SP2 to Win7?

2. Why won't M$ provide a built-in option in Win8 so Metro is hidden, and a direct boot to desktop and legacy start menu?

In short, if you want the improved performance & direct boot to desktop/legacy start menu; but don't want Metro ... you're forced to use a work around like Classic Shell.

If M$ are so bloody minded that they won't provide those options to accomodate the preferences of their army of loyal desktop users, then no matter how good the improvements in OS, I'm simply not interested in dealing with that company.

 

[pparks1]

The same situation occurred when Win 7 was released. The 'IT Experts' slamming it etc.

I don't recall that at all with Windows 7. Every IT person that I work with was very, very impressed with the OS and how well it worked. We jumped onto Windows 7 from XP and Vista almost immediately at work. Same thing for me at home.

 

[pparks1]

1. Why haven't the improved performance aspects of Win8 been offered as SP2 to Win7?

Couple of things
#1). Windows 8 is not out yet, so maybe these changes are coming
#2). MS would rather you spend $40 and upgrade.
#3). If you could have the performance improvements of 8, without having Metro..some people wouldn't ever move to Windows 8

2. Why won't M$ provide a built-in option in Win8 so Metro is hidden, and a direct boot to desktop and legacy start menu?

They want an easily recognizable and united front across phones, game consoles, tablets and the OS.

 

[legacy7955]

For me there are two sticking points with Win8; and it's not just a case of preferences, but Microsoft attitude.

1. Why haven't the improved performance aspects of Win8 been offered as SP2 to Win7?

2. Why won't M$ provide a built-in option in Win8 so Metro is hidden, and a direct boot to desktop and legacy start menu?

In short, if you want the improved performance & direct boot to desktop/legacy start menu; but don't want Metro ... you're forced to use a work around like Classic Shell.

If M$ are so bloody minded that they won't provide those options to accomodate the preferences of their army of loyal desktop users, then no matter how good the improvements in OS, I'm simply not interested in dealing with that company.

Eggactly!

Poking your finger in the eyes of your best and most loyal customers over the years is no way to do business, in fact this kind of arrogance is what decimates businesses.

All I can say is if Steve doesn't allow the engineers to add the choice to have a direct boot to desktop OPTION to bypass METRO completely, and the traditional start menu as well, I hope MS crashes and burns in a spectacular fashion, because they will totally deserve that fate.

 

[maursund]

There should be an option to hide Metro, if enough people complain they might implement it.

 

[SIW2]

Plenty of people have been asking for that for a long time.

Falling on deaf ears.

 

[Fredledingue]

This dialog would save W8 from disaster and even make it the best OS ever.

(This image/dialog is from Stardock's Start8. )

 

[Max Peck]

This dialog would save W8 from disaster and even make it the best OS ever.

(This image/dialog is from Stardock's Start8. )

They could also provide the option to use Aero Glass on the desktop. They just ripped that out between the CP and RTM - it couldn't have been that big a change. Win8, then, could have all the performance improvements that it seems to have but it could still present itself the same way as Win7 does for those who would prefer it that way. (Like me). Microsoft did not HAVE to force the GUI change on desktop users.

As it is, I'm likely to keep Win8 corralled in a VM for quite awhile. I want to play with it but I don't want to commit a machine to it.

 

[Mustang]

Win8, then, could have all the performance improvements that it seems to have but it could still present itself the same way as Win7 does for those who would prefer it that way. (Like me). Microsoft did not HAVE to force the GUI change on desktop users.

As it is, I'm likely to keep Win8 corralled in a VM for quite awhile. I want to play with it but I don't want to commit a machine to it.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[legacy7955]

STEVE ......ARE YOU LISTENING ??????

THIS DIALOGUE BOX SHOULD BE A WINDOWS
ITEM, NOT A THIRD PARTY PROGRAM.

 

[ksdixon]

Look I was as against the Start Screen as everyone else was/still is, at first. Then I actually decided to take the time to work with it. Now I like it waay better than the Start Menu of old, and I don't even have a touch device.

I found that I could take-away anything I didn't want by un-pinning them. I could add all of the things I use frequently (and have more space to do so than in Win7 where I split the most used as Pinned Taskbar items, and lesser-used as Start Menu pinned items). I can separate different things into different columns as well, so that it all makes sense. This makes my taskbar and desktop area less cluttered. I suspect for many people it will simply become the new way of having loads of folders/shortcuts on your desktop, leaving you with your desktop background un-hidden behind loads of programs, and all your programs organized in separate columns with the click of one corner hotspot.

 

[Fredledingue]

Ok, I still fail to see what's the advantage over a well arranged desktop, where you can sort all the things by columns too. The classic Start Menu doesn't pop up when you boot the OS. It doesn't fill the entire screen while you don't need it and didn't ask it. And it doesn't hide the taskbar. Why the Start Screen hides the Tasbar is beyond me.

found that I could take-away anything I didn't want by un-pinning them

You can also arrange the Start Menu by sub menus which makes a lot of sens. But very few poeple does so. on the W8 Start Screen you are compelled to do it else it's a real mess from the beginning.

 

[ksdixon]

Why exactly do you want Start Screen to show the taskbar? Theoretically anything you really want would be pinned to the taskbar, so you wouldn't be going into the Start Screen to select it and vice-verse you shouldn't need to see the task bar for the 2 seconds it takes you to find the thing you need on the Start Screen which you haven't deemed important enough to pin to taskbar.

Advantages over a well organized desktop? You can see the background picture on your desktop, giving you a clean interface. But if you do need to launch the Start Screen to get to an application that's not already pinned on your taskbar, you have much more room for more pinned items on the Start Screen than you do in the Win7 Start Menu, where you have to juggle the verticle start menu space between pinned start menu items and recently used programs. I can't imagine many people still used Start Menu's legacy system of dumping program folders/shortcuts into the Programs subdirectory over the combination of Windows Explorer's navigation pane, taskbar/start menu pinned items, and the Win7 start menu search box.

 

[Fredledingue]

you shouldn't need to see the task bar for the 2 seconds it takes you to find the thing you need on the Start Screen

First the Start Screen appears when the computer boots and the session is ready to use and in absence of any command it stays there. That means we hae an interface by default which is without taskbar. As long as you run only metro apps, you hae no taskbar.

Why exactly do you want Start Screen to show the taskbar?

For the same reasons I like to have the taskbar visible all the time. I like to see which apps are running and which documents are open, even (especialy should I say) when I'm looking to open another program or document. I also would like the charms to be always visible so that I know where I must click and don't hae to call my visual memory for that.

you have much more room for more pinned items on the Start Screen than you do in the Win7 Start Menu, where you have to juggle the verticle start menu space between pinned start menu items and recently used programs.

With all the subfolders and sub sub folders you can create in the classic Start Menu, it's close to infinity. With the Start Acreen, beyond 3 or 4 screen full of tiles it's unusable or extremly slow.

I can't imagine many people still used Start Menu's legacy system of dumping program folders/shortcuts into the Programs subdirectory over the combination of Windows Explorer's navigation pane, taskbar/start menu pinned items, and the Win7 start menu search box.

Very few poeple actualy does this but if more poeple did it they would enjoy a tremendous app launcher interface, and find their stuffs very quickely. I did so for myself and I had a very clean very easy to use Start Menu, all sorted into categories (folders) and subcategories (subfolders). It took about hour to sort all the Programs'items into the Start Menu but well worth it, (if you have a use for more than 20 apps occasionaly of course).

Advantages over a well organized desktop?

Desktops and Start Menu's are usualy real mess because poeple don't clear them. Garbage keep on piling up without anybody to care. Poeple do clear their home, but they were never educated to clear their computer and that's why it looks difficult for them to find what their need. With the Start Screen it won't be any different.