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

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).

IE has two different skins - a Metro skin for the immersive UI and a standard IE9-style desktop skin for the desktop. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to use the immersive or standard desktop environments exclusively. It's up to you (and the apps you use) to determine that. The only exception to this is the Start Screen which is metro but, as I said in another thread, nobody spends enough time on the Start menu/screen to make it worth worrying about.

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.

You know you can resize the apps and have multiple ones on the screen with dividers? :)

You know you can resize the apps and have multiple ones on the screen with dividers? :)

Whats wrong with having windows on a desktop, i have at least 5 apps open all at the same time i dont need to tile them or divide them.

The little tiles have some sort real time notifications (like weather) but many others do not.

And the point of the Dev preview is for us to actually be creating those tiles with notifications - so by the time the public BETA hits, basically everything will be alive and animated with update information and notifications all happening in the background. You can't be disliking it for something that this build itself is there to correct :p

Whats wrong with having windows on a desktop, i have at least 5 apps open all at the same time i dont need to tile them or divide them.

Nothing's wrong with that. Click the desktop tile or hit Win-D and use it (or just turn off the start screen completely.) I was simply saying that you can easily view and use multiple Metro apps at once.

Metro UI is HORRIBLE on desktops. Unless they are going to give the option at Install whether or not to use Metro UI then I will not be encouraging people to purchase this version of windows. for a Desktop/Laptop. I do not want to have to go around modifying peoples computer just so they can use it for day to day usage.

The fact that it's a tech preview does not change the fundamental concept. That's what we're talking about here.

I don't think the concept works on the desktop at all, yet it's perfect for tablets. I can't see them making it work well on the PC with extra work either, It just doesn't make sense for a desktop experience.

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.

This is exacty it, the Metro Design Language gets the UI Chrome out of the way and puts the data first. Take a look at the mail client on WP7, and apart from the app bar at the bottom, the content forms the UI putting it up front.

The tiles are largely irrelevant, it's the content they convey to the user that's more important. Again, tiles on WP7 show just what you need to see i.e. Messaging has an icon, yes, but the important part is the counter showing how many text messages you've recieved.

  • Like 1

It is not the time to judge the interface in such an unfinished state. It is a technology preview. And a lot of features have not been shown, and even those shown at BUILD are not present in this build.

But the basic idea and the design philosophy is grand and world-changing.

The solution they have is very simple and elegant, even at this early stage.

Nothing's wrong with that. Click the desktop tile or hit Win-D and use it (or just turn off the start screen completely.) I was simply saying that you can easily view and use multiple Metro apps at once.

I shouldnt have to turn it off, though its not just that, the whole OS is going to be designed for and geared around Metro which means my user experience if i dont want all the metro crap is going to be impacted for the majority of the brainless simple minded slate users.

You know you can resize the apps and have multiple ones on the screen with dividers? :)

Only thing with that is we don't know if we can have more than 2 at a time. That's the only "limitation" that I see so far with Windows 8 that will hamper "productivity" in the Immersive UI. If we can have more than 2 (and why can I not do split screen....I think that's crazy) then I believe it will do great for productivity. I think right now they haven't announced more than 2 is because they are still trying to figure out how to do "right click" aka app bar for those resized applications. They are really focused on making sure that whatever you do in the Immersive UI is well thought out and makes sense.

Metro UI like Marmite? Love it or hate it.

I think if MS want to make the new Start Screen work with the desktop crowd it needs improved. They need to sell it as the new taskbar, allowing you to create shortcut tiles etc. Also they need to remove the darn "flicking" when clicking the left hand side of the screen for desktop users.

IMO I believe MS need to get this right first time, keeping the desktop customers happy or there will be a lot staying with win 7 or dare I say it moving to an Apple PC eventually.

Generally, people don't like change & I fear that this will be the worst mistake that MS can do for the desktop environment for their company.

I shouldnt have to turn it off, though its not just that, the whole OS is going to be designed for and geared around Metro which means my user experience if i dont want all the metro crap is going to be impacted for the majority of the brainless simple minded slate users.

Then stick with Windows 7 then, it's not as if Windows 7 disks and PCs will spontaneously combust just because Windows 8 is going to be on the market.

The truth is this version is a DEVELOPER PREVIEW i.e. IT'S... NOT... COMPLETE.

Only thing with that is we don't know if we can have more than 2 at a time. That's the only "limitation" that I see so far with Windows 8 that will hamper "productivity" in the Immersive UI. If we can have more than 2 (and why can I not do split screen....I think that's crazy) then I believe it will do great for productivity. I think right now they haven't announced more than 2 is because they are still trying to figure out how to do "right click" aka app bar for those resized applications. They are really focused on making sure that whatever you do in the Immersive UI is well thought out and makes sense.

I can only get two as well, but... "It's not done yet" :p

I remember seeing a preview video where they had more than two apps open side by side, but apparently it's not in the DP.

EDIT: I just noticed that you can drag the desktop and make it one of the "screen tiles" - you can use an app and and the desktop at the same time.

I can only get two as well, but... "It's not done yet" :p

I remember seeing a preview video where they had more than two apps open side by side, but apparently it's not in the DP.

I think you're right, I think it was a video and something else. Once we get more than 2 apps at the same time, when we get into the realm of "productivity" because honestly, that's all it really is. Multitasking and how fast and efficient can I multitask. Even though 2 screens at the same time is still productive. People like organized clutter. lol.

Another thing, we need to get productivity Metro apps before we can say that this isn't good for productivity reasons. It's all about the applications. Someone make a quick Notepad. lol.

The fact that it's a tech preview does not change the fundamental concept. That's what we're talking about here.

I don't think the concept works on the desktop at all, yet it's perfect for tablets. I can't see them making it work well on the PC with extra work either, It just doesn't make sense for a desktop experience.

It does effect the fact that a lot of people can't properly envision the concept. Microsoft haven't shipped the complete vision. They've shipped barebones preview apps which people are basing their entire impression of the concept on - the problem is, this build is not the "User Experience" - it's the "Developers go and create the user experience" build. Windows 8 isn't going to be shipping with this bunch of quickly prototyped and sumer intern made apps - these are showcases for developers, not show cases for end uses. The fact is the Metro start screen relies on it's apps to be what it is. Without the real apps - the bigger, completer, it's hard for people to judge properly. And the developers have to create those experiences before the users can properly objectively decide whether the like it's concept. That or just what ridiculous amounts of Build sessions to know what's going on :p

What's wrong with this concept:

It's full entirely of what's important to the user

Their start screen is constantly keeping them upto date without having to jump into apps

It's always their - it's fast and easy to get too.

It brings all their web services natively to their desktop.

It allows desktop apps to natively and simply interact with web services

It allows desktop apps to access each other in a consistent and simple manner

Users can search using any apps search functions at any time

A user can also go to their old native desktop and use all their existing programs however they want.

It's a good vision - it takes some getting used to, but the concept seems nice on paper does it not?

  • Like 1

The concept works for the desktop once you wrap your head around the new way it looks. Honestly I have around 8 to 9 apps open normally, but I really only use the browser and IRC the most, the other things are there but I flip to them less, like Outlook, I'll check it when I get a new email msg and then minimize it away to the tray etc. The point is, sure you have lots of windows open, but what do you spend most of your time in? I think for most it's 2 apps while the rest sit there 90% of the time per day.

There are elements missing in the new UI, elements that make it better in the end, all we have is the bare minimum to get an idea right now. Until all the parts are in place and we have a beta with all the features you can't really say it does or doesn't work on the desktop. I for one, am able to use it just fine for the desktop, the start screen starts apps, if what you use are old style desktop apps and not full screen metro apps then it doesn't change anything really. Hit winkey, start typing, hit enter and your apps start. It's the same as it was.

  • Like 1

Like a lot of others here, I'm not a big fan of the UI as it stands on the desktop. On my laptop, it's easy enough to use if a little "clunky" because it doesn't feel as if it's been optimised for a mouse/keyboard experience at this particular point in time.

On a large monitor at 1920x1080, I just can't see it working well.

However, all this being said, I fully expect to see more come out when the Beta is finally released later on in the year. I'll reserve my judgement until then. Because this is purely aimed at developers for the time being, I can understand why most of the effort appears to have gone in to Metro - when this thing launches, they want a WHOLE raft of apps being available for it. Us desktop users who aren't so keen just need to sit back and wait to see what they come up with. A MASSIVE part of Microsoft's business are enterprise users, and I can't imagine this will be forced on them as is.

Then stick with Windows 7 then, it's not as if Windows 7 disks and PCs will spontaneously combust just because Windows 8 is going to be on the market.

The truth is this version is a DEVELOPER PREVIEW i.e. IT'S... NOT... COMPLETE.

Wow, you mean the Windows 8 Developer Preview isnt retail? Gee thanks for telling me.

Try reading what i said again, think about it a bit, then come up with a proper answer.

Windows 7 wont spontaneously combust but because its the newer operating system, microsoft and developers are going to be gearing their apps to this Metro interface and it means im going to lose out on features if i dont use Metro.

OK peoples, as was said in the OP, everyone knows it's a developer preview but feedback is what causes change. IF you wait till it's final then they'll say well we didn't hear any complaints so we thought everyone liked it.

The fact that it's not final doesn't mean you should just deal with it, actually the fact that it's not final is why Microsoft is sending it out (knowing even developers wont like certain things that doesn't have to deal with delopment). If you are a developer and you only care about the code but not the final presentation of your App alongside with other apps then you aren't seeing the big picture. What if you designed an app now with the UI in mind just the way it is and then Microsoft went all 180 degrees and changed tons of stuff, your design would now be out of date. This is of-course if you didn't voice concerns as well as followed up with Microsoft on new changes. Surely you'd be a bad dev then but Microsoft knows there are those "Garage developers" which wont have futher access that normal MSDN subscribers do so they may not get all the information that those paid guys will. Microsoft wants to hear their feedback as well, otherwise why release it to the "public" ??

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • 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!