Windows 8 Metro: The fall of windows or the best invention ever

Dean_Mc wrote: »

Easy on the language. Nobodies arguing with you here. We are all adults.

You are incorrect. The EU will only get involved if there are antitrust breaches. Offering an app store is not a breach. Have you actually used Windows 8? You still have access to the desktop, you can still download software for the desktop. Links that you click in Metro Apps still open in Chrome if that is your default browser. There are no restrictions whatsoever. The only thing that has changed is that the start bar has become the start screen for the purposes of allowing people to access and manage Metro apps in a unified fashion.

I have used it yes, i always try new OS's and adopted Windows 7 from a very early build as my main OS, However I have nothing but contempt for windows 8 and its interface from a desktop users perspective.

Blowfish

Dean_Mc wrote: »

Here is an interesting observation for people flat out refusing to ever use Windows 8. All things being equal Desktop is this generations Console Window...

Interesting indeed. For years Microsoft stopped supporting the console and only supported the GUI, only to finally realise that by doing so, they were making people less productive in a work environment.

Hence, more recently they've started increasing their support for the console hugely through Powershell, to the point that every application they release comes with a PoSH module which quite often lets you do more than you can through the GUI.

The same applies to Metro. Pushing away from and/or reducing support for the Desktop UI is a bad idea as in a business/work environment it's simply more productive than Metro. Having both is fine though.

fionny wrote: »

I have used it yes, i always try new OS's and adopted Windows 7 from a very early build as my main OS, However I have nothing but contempt for windows 8 and its interface from a desktop users perspective.

And you are completely entitled to that right. The nice thing is even if you hate metro you can still use Window's 8. I develop software for Windows and as such would be a power user. The only time I see Metro is when I press the Windows Key and type the app I want (any app not just metro).

Windows 8 will succeed because of this choice. If you hate metro, never use it, love it, use it solely. The point is that Windows 8 offers both views and compromises on neither. Microsoft are not stopping anybody from doing anything they could do on Windows 7. That includes steam.

Dean_Mc wrote: »

And you are completely entitled to that right. The nice thing is even if you hate metro you can still use Window's 8. I develop software for Windows and as such would be a power user. The only time I see Metro is when I press the Windows Key and type the app I want (any app not just metro).

Windows 8 will succeed because of this choice. If you hate metro, never use it, love it, use it solely. The point is that Windows 8 offers both views and compromises on neither. Microsoft are not stopping anybody from doing anything they could do on Windows 7. That includes steam.

I would happily use windows 8 if I had the option to DISABLE metro and enable the "classic" interface but nooooooo M$ are actively removing all references to the legacy code to stop even hacks re-enabling. This is beyond me... leave people the option, by all means have Metro as default but let people change it if they like.

fionny wrote: »

I would happily use windows 8 if I had the option to DISABLE metro and enable the "classic" interface but nooooooo M$ are actively removing all references to the legacy code to stop even hacks re-enabling. This is beyond me... leave people the option, by all means have Metro as default but let people change it if they like.

But you can just use legacy. The only difference is that the start bar has become the start screen. There are no other functional difference. If anything "classic" as you call it has gotten much more powerful as they anticipate it's use as a power tool, so in effect the arrival of Metro to placate regular users will lead to a much better desktop for advanced users.

Dean_Mc wrote: »

But you can just use legacy. The only difference is that the start bar has become the start screen.

Yes a screen that pulls you entirely out of what you were doing and has gaudy huge tiles on it. It is totally unsuitable for a desktop.

I've used it for the last 3/4 months, haven't had any issues. The old startbar/program list is now tiled. Not exactly a big deal.

runawaybishop wrote: »

I've used it for the last 3/4 months, haven't had any issues. The old startbar/program list is now tiled. Not exactly a big deal.

Depends on how you use your computer.

fionny wrote: »

Yes a screen that pulls you entirely out of what you were doing and has gaudy huge tiles on it. It is totally unsuitable for a desktop.

Actually the tiles take up roughly the same space as desktop icon's when you set them to the small size. Also give that most power users press the win key and search for their apps or files the Metro start screen is actually better for them since the search is vastly improved and can be controlled and filtered from the keyboard.

Consider this. To change apps that you have open in Windows 7 you use the mouse or alt tab. In Windows 8 if you have chrome open and you press WinKey and Chr then enter it will take you back to your open instance of chrome.

I run 2 24" monitors and have found Metro a much more productive environment to work in since it is so keyboard friendly.

Well thats not my experience of it,

fionny wrote: »

Depends on how you use your computer.

Depends on how set in your ways you are.

fionny wrote: »

Well thats not my experience of it,

Honestly, here is my suggestion. Go back and install it. Remove all the apps from the start screen, all of them. Install all your usual software and set up just apps were you want to use live tile. Things like Twitter, Mail, Etc.

From their only use the keyboard to get to your apps using the search. Once you realise that Metro is not all or nothing you begin to see that you have a **** hot version of Windows 7 that has lots of live tile info every time you search for an app.

I will give it one final look when the RTM comes out but unless there has been some massive change since i tried it the first 2 times then I wont be opening my wallet.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Depends on how set in your ways you are.

I use the many computers in my day in a way which is efficient so efficient that in every job I have ever done I have out performed and put previous employee's to shame because of the very fact that I optimise my methods and strip out un-neccesary interfaces / steps etc...

fionny wrote: »

I will give it one final look when the RTM comes out but unless there has been some massive change since i tried it the first 2 times then I wont be opening my wallet.

I believe the default desktop background is now Clouds. I haven't seen much else change and i've been using different builds every few days.

fionny wrote: »

I use the many computers in my day in a way which is efficient so efficient that in every job I have ever done I have out performed and put previous employee's to shame because of the very fact that I optimise my methods and strip out un-neccesary interfaces / steps etc...

Metro is more efficient - what you have just said doesn't make sense.

Fysh

Dean_Mc wrote: »

Your assumption is incorrect. Microsoft are not closing off the platform. I run Windows 8 and I have steam installed. Gabe is annoyed at the fact that Microsoft are releasing a competitor app which is branded Xbox. This was always going to happen. Xbox is one of Microsoft's most successful brand's and with the merger of Zune services into the Xbox brand the consumer will benefit immensely.

I find it odd that you jump on Microsoft so quickly for locking down their system. Do not forget that Valve are also trying to make a console that will only run games purchased from Steam. They are just as guilty as every other company in trying to build a walled garden.

Also using M$ really smacks of keyboard warrior.

So Valve, the first company to ever provide a games distribution system under which games developers can distribute to different computer OS, who are also working on Steam for Linux, are the ones trying to build a closed garden? That's not how closed gardens work.

The thing about Win8 and the store is that for years Windows has needed and lacked a repository system. Now it comes along not as a repository, but as a "store" (ie somewhere Microsoft tries to get people to use for buying software, with MS getting a cut of the pie as a result).

Now, we saw at the start of the year that MS were talking about working "with their OEM partners" to help them design their best tablet efforts for Win8RT. Then, in June, we get the announcement that MS are also going to compete with them and release their own tablet. Contentious for 2 reasons: 1) MS has previously not been a competitor in that market and thus was given a substantial amount of access to design information from their partners, and they are now becoming a competitor, and 2) Microsoft has insisted that Win8RT also come with the Made-for-Metro version of Office 2013. That means OEMs have to pay not only the OEM Win8RT licence cost, but also the OEM Office 2013 licence cost. For any non-premium device arena (which, let's be honest, will be needed to actually make a device like this successful) that means that OEMs have to choose between being even vaguely price competitive and retaining their margins. The cost of both Windows & Office OEM licences is comparable to the entire profit margin on a ~$300 tablet, which puts MS at an advantage over their OEM partner/rivals.

That is where I see some OEMs deciding they aren't interested, and choosing to not bother with Windows tablets.

The thing is, though...Microsoft are clearly following Apple's lead with some of these moves, and if this whole Win8RT business and the MS tablet works, they'll start looking at the laptop and desktop business next. Arguably the Secure Boot nonsense is a first step in that direction.

I have yet to see any demonstration of how the Metro UI could possibly improve my workflow and productivity. Pointless drivel about how I can install a TV Network app and have it show me the day's Tv schedule makes me think that basically the Metro UI is the new Desktop Gadgets - another function I barely used (I have only ever found 2 desktop gadgets I liked - the bigger clock for ease of visibility, and the calendar with the option to see the entire month at a time - and I can easily live without them).

I'm not digging this idea that the "awesome new UI" (if you really wanted to make your desktop look like a giant, crap mobile phone) should be something I fight against and then faff around to disable, instead of being given an option of which UI I would like to use with my modern OS. I mean, Christ, it's not that hard. Though as I've said before, Metro being a pointless and stupid UI is entirely consistent with Unity, KDE4 and Gnome3 being pointless and stupid UIs...it's like there's an effort to force one particular workflow on every single user out there going on in UI-dev-land. A hefty kick in the nadgers for those responsible, says I.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Metro is more efficient - what you have just said doesn't make sense.

Context please. In terms of doing what I want to do and finding what I'm after, I've found Metro getting in the bloody way and being a total arseache when I've tried it. Perhaps my usage model differs from yours, but I question the assertion that re-learning how to do all the stuff I do so I can "take advantage" of the Giant Crap Mobile Phone UI Paradigm is an inherently good idea.

If you're talking about system resource usage, I'm curious about what's been said about this so far but remain to be convinced that this won't just lead to more crashes and instances of data loss. Six months after release we'll have a better idea of how it works, though...

Blowfish wrote: »

Interesting indeed. For years Microsoft stopped supporting the console and only supported the GUI, only to finally realise that by doing so, they were making people less productive in a work environment.

Hence, more recently they've started increasing their support for the console hugely through Powershell, to the point that every application they release comes with a PoSH module which quite often lets you do more than you can through the GUI.

The same applies to Metro. Pushing away from and/or reducing support for the Desktop UI is a bad idea as in a business/work environment it's simply more productive than Metro. Having both is fine though.

I agree completely (Massive PoSH Fan ;P) and I think with how they have implemented Windows 8 is a nice alternative than just pushing ahead with Metro. My whole life revolves around desktop and I don't think it will be going away any time soon.

Fysh wrote: »

So Valve, the first company to ever provide a games distribution system under which games developers can distribute to different computer OS, who are also working on Steam for Linux, are the ones trying to build a closed garden? That's not how closed gardens work.

The thing about Win8 and the store is that for years Windows has needed and lacked a repository system. Now it comes along not as a repository, but as a "store" (ie somewhere Microsoft tries to get people to use for buying software, with MS getting a cut of the pie as a result).

Now, we saw at the start of the year that MS were talking about working "with their OEM partners" to help them design their best tablet efforts for Win8RT. Then, in June, we get the announcement that MS are also going to compete with them and release their own tablet. Contentious for 2 reasons: 1) MS has previously not been a competitor in that market and thus was given a substantial amount of access to design information from their partners, and they are now becoming a competitor, and 2) Microsoft has insisted that Win8RT also come with the Made-for-Metro version of Office 2013. That means OEMs have to pay not only the OEM Win8RT licence cost, but also the OEM Office 2013 licence cost. For any non-premium device arena (which, let's be honest, will be needed to actually make a device like this successful) that means that OEMs have to choose between being even vaguely price competitive and retaining their margins. The cost of both Windows & Office OEM licences is comparable to the entire profit margin on a ~$300 tablet, which puts MS at an advantage over their OEM partner/rivals.

That is where I see some OEMs deciding they aren't interested, and choosing to not bother with Windows tablets.

The thing is, though...Microsoft are clearly following Apple's lead with some of these moves, and if this whole Win8RT business and the MS tablet works, they'll start looking at the laptop and desktop business next. Arguably the Secure Boot nonsense is a first step in that direction.

I have yet to see any demonstration of how the Metro UI could possibly improve my workflow and productivity. Pointless drivel about how I can install a TV Network app and have it show me the day's Tv schedule makes me think that basically the Metro UI is the new Desktop Gadgets - another function I barely used (I have only ever found 2 desktop gadgets I liked - the bigger clock for ease of visibility, and the calendar with the option to see the entire month at a time - and I can easily live without them).

I'm not digging this idea that the "awesome new UI" (if you really wanted to make your desktop look like a giant, crap mobile phone) should be something I fight against and then faff around to disable, instead of being given an option of which UI I would like to use with my modern OS. I mean, Christ, it's not that hard. Though as I've said before, Metro being a pointless and stupid UI is entirely consistent with Unity, KDE4 and Gnome3 being pointless and stupid UIs...it's like there's an effort to force one particular workflow on every single user out there going on in UI-dev-land. A hefty kick in the nadgers for those responsible, says I.

Context please. In terms of doing what I want to do and finding what I'm after, I've found Metro getting in the bloody way and being a total arseache when I've tried it. Perhaps my usage model differs from yours, but I question the assertion that re-learning how to do all the stuff I do so I can "take advantage" of the Giant Crap Mobile Phone UI Paradigm is an inherently good idea.

If you're talking about system resource usage, I'm curious about what's been said about this so far but remain to be convinced that this won't just lead to more crashes and instances of data loss. Six months after release we'll have a better idea of how it works, though...

My work flow is to have various instances of Visual Studio, various consoles and other studio software running at any one time and Metro has yet to get in the way. I would describe myself as a very advanced user and do not see were all the friction people are having is coming from apart from the dislike of Metro as a style / design choice.

Your comment on steam is interesting. Steam are actively building a closed garden, it may be cross platform but the idea is the same. Our services on our terms. Granted they have not gotten their just yet but that is the model they are following.

I am still unsure as to why people are saying Metro is a tightening of freedom. No freedom has been lost. Everything you know and love is still in Window's 8. The only thing Microsoft have done is to be coherent in the delivery of their product's and services, something which people have been asking for for years.

[Deleted User]

In my opinion, the last real revolutionary "must have" Windows versions were those in the 5.x series (2000/XP/2003). 2000 was an improvement over NT 4.0 in compatibility and ease of configuration. XP was a major improvement over any Windows 9x release. While there were teething problems with the 9x-NT migration, I don't think that anyone really felt that this migration wasn't necessary.

Bring on the 6.x releases. Vista was change for the sake of change. The only real killer feature in it was the Start menu search (and in fairness I do miss this when using an XP machine). Windows 7 was basically a fixed Vista and in a way I think it proved Microsoft's "Mojave experiment" to be correct - in other words, don't call it Vista. Windows 8 is entirely about touch use - there's no benefit for a desktop user. Heck, even shutting down the OS is a chore - again fine on a tablet but not on a desktop which draws 60+ watts when left on. In fact they seem to have made it as hard as possible to shut down, I even had to search online to see how to do it. When you need to use Classic Shell to make the OS usable on a desktop then something is seriously wrong. Then again, with Microsoft's past behaviour with Office 2007 it doesn't really surprise me anymore. It's their way or the high way.

Some of what's being said out there, such as from Valve, is probably FUD due to the fact that the Windows Store will compete with Steam. Steam itself is DRM, the only difference is that it's now cross platform DRM. Yet, Secure Boot scares me. Combine secure boot with a Trusted Platform Module and you can produce an extremely authoritative system that won't even trust you, the user. This has been proposed for years, first under the codename Palladium.

Can a touch UI really replace a keyboard and mouse? Will PC game developers be forced to abandon the platform for consoles (or move to Mac/Linux) as their games cannot be played on touch screen devices? Case in point, FPS games are best played with keyboards and mice, even with joypads they're flaky. They'd be unplayable on a touch screen. Casual games such as Cut the Rope, Angry Birds and Plants vs Zombies are fine on tablets but I can't see anything more serious being possible.

I can certainly see more resistance to Windows 8 than even Vista. Many of the users on here who supported Vista are against Windows 8. I think that in itself says something.

If Apple or Linux don't make gains in the desktop market after the release of Windows 8 I'd be very surprised. This time, Microsoft are even pissing off the OEMs by releasing their own hardware. That alone could be enough to cause a divide.

Torqay

Karsini wrote: »

In my opinion, the last real revolutionary "must have" Windows versions were those in the 5.x series (2000/XP/2003).

Well, ain't that the truth?

I'm still using 2003 and hope it will get me over Windows 8 as well. Jeez, If I wanted an App Store, I'd buy an iPad.

Vista, 7 and 8 have really nothing to offer which I'd crave. IE9 or 10 I certainly don't need, ditto Dx10 or 11. You mentioned the improved Windows Search, which I think is a terrible resource hog, there are vastly superior utilities, with or without content search.

Other than that I pretty much agree with your assessment.

[Deleted User]

Torqay wrote: »

Vista, 7 and 8 have really nothing to offer which I'd crave. IE9 or 10 I certainly don't need, ditto Dx10 or 11. You mentioned the improved Windows Search, which I think is a terrible resource hog, there are vastly superior utilities, with or without content search.

It certainly can be. I used to disable the indexing and only use it for the Start menu. For file searching I still use the old fashioned dir /s after XP. Nowadays I have two SSDs in RAID 0 so I think my system is up to it.

DirectX 10 and 11 didn't have to require a new OS, same with IE9 or IE10. Every other browser still has current releases running on XP. They were just cases of forced obsolescence.

Torqay

Karsini wrote: »

It certainly can be. I used to disable the indexing and only use it for the Start menu. For file searching I still use the old fashioned dir /s after XP. Nowadays I have two SSDs in RAID 0 so I think my system is up to it.

I just LOVE Everything, that's how Windows Search should have been, except it doesn't support network drives. I barely need content search but I do have Agent Ransack (LOVE the name) just in case.

SlickRun is another "gimmick" I can't do without.

Karsini wrote: »

DirectX 10 and 11 didn't have to require a new OS, same with IE9 or IE10. Every other browser still has current releases running on XP. They were just cases of forced obsolescence.

Indeed. When Microsoft decided not to make IE7 available for Windows 2000, it gave Mozilla a tremendous boost and cost MS dearly on the browser market.

Stark

DirectX 10/11 are depedent on the new display driver model introduced with Windows Vista. Internet Explorer 9 is heavily depedent on the new DirectWrite API. They could backport but it would require reimplementing large parts of the browser to provide what DirectWrite was providing for free.

Fysh

Karsini wrote: »

Some of what's being said out there, such as from Valve, is probably FUD due to the fact that the Windows Store will compete with Steam. Steam itself is DRM, the only difference is that it's now cross platform DRM. Yet, Secure Boot scares me. Combine secure boot with a Trusted Platform Module and you can produce an extremely authoritative system that won't even trust you, the user. This has been proposed for years, first under the codename Palladium.

Well, yes and no. The thing about Steam's DRM is that it's minimally obtrusive and, barring not letting you enable cheats in some games, it doesn't get in the way of what the user wants to do. How much you want to take their word for it will vary from person to person, but they've claimed that if they're in a position that they go under they'll release the relevant keys so that people can continue to use their stuff. (Which is a good thing IMO, since on more than one occasion in the last couple of years I've bought games on disc that turn out to require me to authenticate them in Steam to work...)

Karsini wrote: »

Can a touch UI really replace a keyboard and mouse? Will PC game developers be forced to abandon the platform for consoles (or move to Mac/Linux) as their games cannot be played on touch screen devices? Case in point, FPS games are best played with keyboards and mice, even with joypads they're flaky. They'd be unplayable on a touch screen. Casual games such as Cut the Rope, Angry Birds and Plants vs Zombies are fine on tablets but I can't see anything more serious being possible.

I think it's going to take a good while before we know what, if any, game types will emerge that can properly harness touch interfaces. That said, I think that the likes of Kinect or even the Wii & Wii U are better places to look for inspiration re: alternative input sources than tablet devices which due to size have a completely different usage model.

Karsini wrote: »

I can certainly see more resistance to Windows 8 than even Vista. Many of the users on here who supported Vista are against Windows 8. I think that in itself says something.

If Apple or Linux don't make gains in the desktop market after the release of Windows 8 I'd be very surprised. This time, Microsoft are even pissing off the OEMs by releasing their own hardware. That alone could be enough to cause a divide.

It depends on how they launch it, obviously, but I'm not convinced there's anything much that people will want on a non-touch desktop in Win8. I'm intrigued to see how it goes down though.

[Deleted User]

Stark wrote: »

Internet Explorer 9 is heavily depedent on the new DirectWrite API. They could backport but it would require reimplementing large parts of the browser to provide what DirectWrite was providing for free.

Mozilla were able to implement DirectWrite rendering into Firefox without locking out XP users. It simply reverts to software rendering on XP.

_Kaiser_

Fysh wrote: »

I think it's going to take a good while before we know what, if any, game types will emerge that can properly harness touch interfaces. That said, I think that the likes of Kinect or even the Wii & Wii U are better places to look for inspiration re: alternative input sources than tablet devices which due to size have a completely different usage model.

And right there you've identified why the insistence of this "one size fits all" approach to Win 8 will fail because how people use these different devices varies dramatically.

There's already equivalent Office apps on Android for example, but I'd imagine they don't sell much, partly because of the generally higher price tag but also because in my experience anything more than a quick 2/3 line email will drive me to my laptop - and I have a Galaxy Note which isn't exactly small and cumbersome

People buy Tablets and consoles for entertainment and aren't willing to spend big money on apps.. hence why 99% are under the €3-5 mark. The most expensive thing I've bought on a phone was a Remote Desktop app for about €15 but that was a one-off and mostly because I work in IT and am therefore a nerd!

By contrast I've spent hundreds on desktop software - even in the last 2 years - and I can't see my purchasing model changing so that I'll start buying loads of apps instead!

Even if I had a touch screen laptop or monitor, the action of having to lean forward to touch the screen requires a lot more physical effort than using a mouse/keyboard that I'd imagine you'd get very tired of it after an 8 hour day - or blind from sitting so close to the screen.. then there's the time wasted by having to clean the screen of fingerprints every hour, or the inevitable support calls from people who broke their monitor by stabbing it with a pen or knocking it off the desk

I've always gone for the latest and greatest in the past, but until Windows 8 comes with the option to disable/not install Metro at all or someone comes up with a utility that will kill the new Start screen and restore the Win 7 Start Menu as it exists on my laptop today, I won't be "upgrading" anyway.

I still find it strange that everyone is swinging one way or the other...

ONLY DESKTOP vs ONLY METRO

The idea is to have both, pretty soon we are going to have multi touch mice that offer the precision of a mouse with the speed of a touch pad for navigation. If you have used a magic mouse or Apple track pad before you will know that these types of equipment are very complimentary.

Windows 8 is touch vs no touch its touch andor no touch.

Fysh

Dean_Mc wrote: »

I still find it strange that everyone is swinging one way or the other...

ONLY DESKTOP vs ONLY METRO

The idea is to have both, pretty soon we are going to have multi touch mice that offer the precision of a mouse with the speed of a touch pad for navigation. If you have used a magic mouse or Apple track pad before you will know that these types of equipment are very complimentary.

Windows 8 is touch vs no touch its touch andor no touch.

You don't seem to be getting this.

If I had a Cintiq, or cared to use a multitouch mouse/trackpad device, Win8 being touch-capable might interest me.

Neither of those options are commonplace in the windows market.

That, combined with the inherently jarring and daft nature of the new Metro menu (jumping you to a home-screen that only makes sense in the context of a smartphone and not in the context of a desktop or even laptop which, at this stage, will be more than powerful enough to support proper actual multitasking without being so resource-limited as to require application hibernating on switching between tasks) means that if you're on an existing laptop or desktop, the purported advantage of Win8 is not an advantage.

There being a tablet version is fine. What's not fine is forcing crap designed for the tablet version on the non-tablet version.

Put it another way - I couldn't give a monkeys' arsecrevice how great it is with multitouch input when multitouch input is so far from the norm in terms of usage patterns on Windows as to be a micro-niche. It's like forcing a display mode geared towards eg stylus input on everyone because you've implemented support for kanji-style characters - it might be great for those who want to use it, but if the majority of your customers lack either the interest in having it or the technology required to use it (touch-based hardware), it's a bloody stupid move. And there's no hope in hell I'd buy (or let/make any of my users buy) a touch screen just to see if Win8 was any better with it.

The really damned sad thing is that Microsoft have released a truly stupid number of different editions of both Vista and 7 (needlessly diversifying in stupid ways, IMO). Win8 is where they change that trend, but they've gone too far the other way. Even Apple haven't been so bloody silly as to make a full-size laptop or desktop run iOS, which would be every bit as stupid as trying to run Server 2012 on a 5" tablet.