Lets hear it! Iimmersive UI (Start Panel) in Windows 8 (Desktop) Good?


This poll applies to Metro UI on the DESKTOP (not Tablets or touch devices)  

321 members have voted

  1. 1. I think the Iimmersive UI (Start Panel) is a great innovation for the desktop PC

    • Yes!
      137
    • No!
      184


Recommended Posts

After installing Windows 8 Developer Preview in a VM, and then alongside Windows 7 on my desktop PC, I'm not totally convinced that metro UI belongs there on my desktop.

I know it's a DEV PREVIEW please don't bother reminding me, I also know that Microsoft is serious about having this on the desktop, as well as everything else (Tablets, Phones etc)

So, what's your opinion?

* Metro UI is the tiled interface, that replaces the desktop.

Yes, with a N.I. (Needs improvement)

I'm sure there are features missing, but it needs to have the ablity to drag-scroll with the mouse for those without touch peripherals.

I would prefer a single press of the Windows key open the old start menu and maybe a double-tap or something similar to return to Start.

  • Like 1

IT'S A GOD DAMN TECH PREVIEW!!!

:p

Yeah, I agree. It's interface doesn't react well to the mouse. I'm sure there will be changes made.

I'd love to keep Metro (because it's awesome) but with the normal start bar instead of the start panel or whatever it's called >.>

I remain hopeful >.<

Metro is **** and is for phones and tablets not a desktop os. They are going to destroy desktop usability for the sake of consistency between devices, Microsoft are ridiculous they go from one extreme to the other, Windows 8 is going to flop.

I don't think we can honestly judge yet. What makes the Metro interface what it is is its apps - without the apps it's quite literally nothing, apart from your user tile and a piece of text that says "Start".

And due to the fact that there are no proper apps for it, apart from a bunch of placeholders, I'd don't think it's right to judge it from a user perspective, because users just aren't going to be using it like this. Users are going to be using it in a far more personal, alive state, that simply doesn't exist today. When the programs are there, when they're all linked up to search contracts and share contracts and all working harmoniously, smoothly, fluidly and quickly with each other - with live tiles exposing all their personal data right there on their start screen - that'll be a better time to judge.

At the moment though, I like it's vision. I like where it's going - it's aiming to make the PC far more personal and far more integrated than what's the default right now. I like it on the desktop too - it's easy to use with the mouse, and it's fast. It's not harder to use, once you're properly introduced to the new workflow (which may take you a little while), it's a nice way of doing things.

I also like the way Microsoft have embraced the cloud with this new Metro framework - much better than what Google is doing with Chrome OS. Instead of killing off the desktop, they're bring down all your data from all your cloud services all over the place, and making them feel natively like part of your operating system. Extremely simple to get too and use all your content in the same UI's, no matter what service it's hosted on.

I don't think it works in it's current form - if anyone is interested in what I think it should be then you can read that here:

[iDEA] Immersive UI for non-touch devices

(hehe, not trying to spam my thread)

Metro is more then just the start panel guys :\

Wow no way, thats just changed my whole outlook on Metro, i am now a convert /s

Ive played with the Dev build and i despise the direction that its going, all the desktop and control elements simplified for the slate market, Windows Phone 7 isnt doing that great and if Microsoft think they can make a dent in the Android/IOS slate market with Windows 8 they are going to do it at all costs which means completely shafting over desktop PC users by making everything oversimplified, just look at the control panel ffs.

Nope. I like the design, the overall look, as such but generally PC should not be dumbed down, it's must still be able to function as a workstation. Though I suppose Metro and Aero could be fused together rather well.

  • Like 1

Metro is more then just the start panel guys :\

It's a design philosophy:

- no chrome

- the data is the UI

but in this preview the only Metro component is the Start Page and the included apps. :)

(and my gripe - the scrollbar - is chrome :p)

Yes, but only providing it can actually replace the desktop. I keep reading conflicting information on this, but the last thing I want is a "browse the Internet on Metro, get dumped to the desktop for anything useful" type experience. For legacy/compatibility purposes I'd be fine with the desktop remaining for now, but if you want to you should be able to use Metro exclusively.

Done well (ie: follows the Metro design philosophy), Metro would make a computer much more fluid and productive, putting the focus on the task at hand and not on a load of superfluous graphics (like web designers have been doing for years).

I think it has legs potentially so I voted Yes. Needs tweaking, needs refinement, needs to all hang together a lot better.. but I think the potential is there.

Hey.. I havent' tried WIndows 8 preview but I can't imagine they will force us to use Metro on desktops if we don't want to. What about enterprise? How is corporate customer going to train their people to work on something like Metro.. it doesn't compute.

Microsoft has become so jealous of Apple that they are making very stupid decisions.

I like Metro UI but it is clearly intended for tablets and phones. If Microsoft doesn't allows us to turn off Metro for our desktop machines I most likely won't be upgrading to Windows 8.

I need Windows so I can use my professional apps and development tools in a usable manner and not some cheesy consumer experience. Microsoft saw Apple making a bucket load of money with iOS and now they think they need to make Windows 8 be completely consumer, dumb down OS.

I hope I'm wrong but all signs point to it now.

IMHO, the Metro UI is bland. Its just text and colored boxes with simplistic icons. I dunno, that's just me. I like the Windows 8 desktop experience better than the Start Tiles.

I think it has legs potentially so I voted Yes. Needs tweaking, needs refinement, needs to all hang together a lot better.. but I think the potential is there.

couldn't have said better :)

They need to make it work more smoothly with KB/mouse. For example, click-drag scrolling with mouse instead of just scroll wheel.

It lasted a day on my testing PC, I don't think its a good direction for the Dekstop. They're trying to do what Apple did to Snow Leopard and iOS for Lion. However you can't see the icons most of the time in Lion. With Windows 8 they are staring at you all of the time.

It's defo a thumbs down for me at this time.

What I hate about it currently as well, is the fact that you can only view one app at a time in the Start Panel, either Socialite or TweetORama is taking up the full 23" screen, that to me is a step backwards when I have up to 6 apps open on my second screen in Windows 7, all viewable, not having to chop and change like the Start Panel requires. The little tiles have some sort real time notifications (like weather) but many others do not.

IMHO, the Metro UI is bland. Its just text and colored boxes with simplistic icons. I dunno, that's just me. I like the Windows 8 desktop experience better than the Start Tiles.

When it's finished (i.e., RTM'd on your machine) - 90% of the time you won't be seeing cloured squares and icons. It'll be alive showing you your data from whatever services you've pinned to the start, animated images and text that's constantly updating and changing. It's kind of like a big, animated, alive notification center, that also launches programs. Which will be very nice for a lot of people - it simplifies being connected to the cloud, and brings the cloud right to your desktop.

And of course if you're in an entreprise environment - you can just unpin all that stuff and just leave it with only the programs you need for work on there. It's flexile, and hides everything you don't need. Only thing's you want are what you see.

I don't think we can honestly judge yet. What makes the Metro interface what it is is its apps - without the apps it's quite literally nothing, apart from your user tile and a piece of text that says "Start".

And due to the fact that there are no proper apps for it, apart from a bunch of placeholders, I'd don't think it's right to judge it from a user perspective, because users just aren't going to be using it like this. Users are going to be using it in a far more personal, alive state, that simply doesn't exist today. When the programs are there, when they're all linked up to search contracts and share contracts and all working harmoniously, smoothly, fluidly and quickly with each other - that'll be a better time to judge.

At the moment though, I like it's vision. I like where it's going - it's aiming to make the PC far more personal and far more integrated than what's the default right now. I like it on the desktop too - it's easy to use with the mouse, and it's fast. It's not harder to use, once you're properly introduced to the new workflow (which may take you a little while), it's a nice way of doing things.

I also like the way Microsoft have embraced the cloud with this new Metro framework - much better than what Google is doing with Chrome OS. Instead of killing off the desktop, they're bring down all your data from all your cloud services all over the place, and making them feel natively like part of your operating system. Extremely simple to get too and use all your content in the same UI's, no matter what service it's hosted on.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement as I was saying this very statement in the #xna channel yesterday. The applications (and the hubs that they will be creating) are going to really make this UI stand out. Even right now I have a lot of websites pinned to my start screen. Oh and just fyi, I use my live ID to sign in and I installed Win 7 over Win 8 yesterday...then installed Win 8 over Win 7 and it kept my group of pinned websites together (I'm guessing through the cloud) and it was awesome. Not having to remember favorites OOTB is a good thing. It's going to be some work but I like where Metro UI is going. Yea, it's going to be jarring and we really don't have anything to do right now but we have to be patient because we are really early in the OS lifecycle but even so, I believe it's the right path to go.

What I hate about it currently as well, is the fact that you can only view one app at a time in the Start Panel, either Socialite or TweetORama is taking up the full 23" screen, that to me is a step backwards when I have up to 6 apps open on my second screen in Windows 7, all viewable, not having to chop and change like the Start Panel requires. The little tiles have some sort real time notifications (like weather) but many others do not.

Yup. Microsoft want a slice of the slate market and if WP7 is anything to go by it doesnt have a hope in hells chance, they are going to burn bridges with all the desktop users who want a desktop experience not a mobile OS experience and when their slates flop they are going to be in big trouble.

It does need things, that's clear, there's lots of option left out or locked from this build because they probably don't work well, one of which is changing the start screens background image as many have asked to do. Stuff like that and naming and moving whole tab groups like they demoed isn't in this build, it's very early. Having used it though, I got used to it and once you know all the kb shortcuts it speeds things up a lot. Toss in more options and more customization and it's good to go without touch as well.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!