177 replies to this topic 9 votes

[De.Bug]

Just wondering. Metro is easier to use and understand than any previous Windows Interface. I can't see why so many people are so dead-set against it. It doesn't make it harder to open applications, the start menu is still there, application search works better, ect. Tell me what is so bad about it. People use the phase "Tablet Interface on an OS" all the time and it doesn't really mean anything. Metro is not harder to use just because it can be used on both a touchscreen and a computer.

[Setnom]

Try this example:

- Go to start screen;
- Search any of your files;
- Right-click -> Send to -> whatever;

You can't with Metro. We used to with start menu.

[Cheatyface]

Yet another 'People! Y u no like metro?' thread. *yawn*

[efjay]

Setnom, on 15 March 2012 - 21:22, said:

Try this example:

- Go to start screen;
- Search any of your files;
- Right-click -> Send to -> whatever;

You can't with Metro. We used to with start menu.

You'll do that with the Share charm or the Picker.

[etempest]

It's not the metro UI by itself, it's having to constantly flop between metro and desktop that is annoying.
If it was all one or the other, I would be fine.

Also, I personally feel metro is designed for a touch interface. There no "minimize" app button I can find and keep thinking if this was a tablet / phone there would be a physical "minimum / run in background" button.
In addition, I feel they should have a start button, even if it mimics the windows logo button with metro at the bare minimum.

[FMH]

Tweaky Nippleton, on 15 March 2012 - 21:23, said:

Yet another 'People! Y u no like metro?' thread. *yawn*

Actually these types of threads are a rarity. We mostly get the 'omg Metro is fail, Windows 8 is Vista 2.0!'

[kawasabi]

De.Bug, on 15 March 2012 - 21:18, said:

Just wondering. Metro is easier to use and understand than any previous Windows Interface. I can't see why so many people are so dead-set against it. It doesn't make it harder to open applications, the start menu is still there, application search works better, ect. Tell me what is so bad about it. People use the phase "Tablet Interface on an OS" all the time and it doesn't really mean anything. Metro is not harder to use just because it can be used on both a touchscreen and a computer.

If you still can't see what people don't like about metro after reading all those posts then this thread is just a waste of interweb space.
Don't see you getting it by asking again and getting all the same replies.

[Cheatyface]

FMH, on 15 March 2012 - 21:28, said:

Actually these types of threads are a rarity. We mostly get the 'omg Metro is fail, Windows 8 is Vista 2.0!'

Don't know what forums you're reading here at Neowin, but on the first two pages alone in the Windows Beta section, the split is pretty much 50/50 with half of the 'dislike topics' being replies to other topics where those against got shouted down or overwhelmed by the 'suck it up, you just hate change' crowd.

[omgben]

etempest, on 15 March 2012 - 21:25, said:

It's not the metro UI by itself, it's having to constantly flop between metro and desktop that is annoying.
If it was all one or the other, I would be fine.

Also, I personally feel metro is designed for a touch interface. There no "minimize" app button I can find and keep thinking if this was a tablet / phone there would be a physical "minimum / run in background" button.
In addition, I feel they should have a start button, even if it mimics the windows logo button with metro at the bare minimum.

Metro is designed for a touch interfaces. Microsoft themselves have said that Metro was a design language created for Windows Phone 7. They've also told developers that if they design Metro apps, then they should be touch first and to embrace Windows 8 Touch technology.

I know others would say otherwise, but it's right there in black and white. From the horse's mouth they say.

bing http://www.microsoft...-phone-7/metro/
boom http://msdn.microsof...s/hh464920.aspx
pow

[TheLegendOfMart]

Why do people constantly complain about people who constantly complain about Metro when it IS easier to use?

[FMH]

Tweaky Nippleton, on 15 March 2012 - 21:40, said:

Don't know what forums you're reading here at Neowin, but on the first two pages alone in the Windows Beta section, the split is pretty much 50/50 with half of the 'dislike topics' being replies to other topics where those against got shouted down or overwhelmed by the 'suck it up, you just hate change' crowd.

Than you may be right. I have been very inactive at Neowin for the past couple of weeks.

[Lexcyn]

Because I can't go Start -> Shutdown.

WTF.

[Cheatyface]

TheLegendOfMart, on 15 March 2012 - 21:44, said:

Why do people constantly complain about people who constantly complain about Metro when it IS easier to use?

Opinion =/= Fact.

[Detection]

De.Bug, on 15 March 2012 - 21:18, said:

Just wondering. Metro is easier to use and understand than any previous Windows Interface. I can't see why so many people are so dead-set against it. It doesn't make it harder to open applications, the start menu is still there, application search works better, ect. Tell me what is so bad about it. People use the phase "Tablet Interface on an OS" all the time and it doesn't really mean anything. Metro is not harder to use just because it can be used on both a touchscreen and a computer.

Yea its easier to use if you're 4

People don't want easy, they want productive

[Wyn6]

kawasabi, on 15 March 2012 - 21:28, said:

If you still can't see what people don't like about metro after reading all those posts then this thread is just a waste of interweb space.
Don't see you getting it by asking again and getting all the same replies.

Actually, he has a good point. From what I read, which is unfortunately a lot ), very few people have fully expressed their reasoning behind the dislike of Windows 8. I say very few because some have given solid reasons as to why they don't like it.

Throwing out the relativeness of aesthetics, all you really see is, "Next Vista/ME", "Not intuitive", "Less efficient", "Slower", "Interrupts workflow", "Unproductive" "Takes an extra second to shutdown", etc.

If I had to guess, I would say that 2 out of every 10 "I don't like it" posts give viable reasons as to how it does any of the above. So, it's not a matter of "reading all those posts". It's a matter of these posts actually having something of substance within them. I don't mind somebody debating the pros and cons, merits or demerits of any given person/place/thing. But, if you're going to debate, offer supporting evidence for your argument.

Anecdotally, I went to lunch with my sister yesterday. We were discussing something (can't remember what it was) and she told me that's how her students respond to certain things. When asked why something is the way it is or why they like something, they answer, "'cause it is." or "'cause I do."