I wish people would stop using "Metro" to refer to the start screen

[rfirth]

my posting in this thread was a response to someone saying that only stupid people will stay with windows 7.

That's not what he said. He said that if you're too stupid to figure out Windows 8, you should stick with Windows 7. That does not mean that only stupid people will stay with Windows 7. You're putting words into his mouth.

Here's what he said (the person you responded to):

If users are that stupid so be it, let em stay on win7 forever.

Which was in response to this:

Thats the problem. Its TOO much of a difference for the average user. Those of us who have to deal with the average user (and below average user, for that matter) on a daily basis will be keeping them away from Windows 8 for as long as possible. Some of them couldn't handle Win 7 very well. They won't be able to deal with 8 at all.

Implying that users are too stupid to figure out Windows 8. They aren't.

Reading comprehension on a forum requires that you understand posts in context.

[Dashel]

It's all relative, but considerably easier than the start menu it replaces.

How so? Its still the same concept, just much, much bigger. The only thing that has changed is that the new All Programs menu is a morass because it lacks all hierarchy.

[Dot Matrix]

How so? Its still the same concept, just much, much bigger. The only thing that has changed is that the new All Programs menu is a morass because it lacks all hierarchy.

How so? All Apps is still laid out the same way the Start Menu is. This was changed after users requested it.

[Dashel]

The classic menu uses a collapsable folder hierarchy in All Programs to display most content. The visual containers of the new All Programs means an always expanded view that is more scrolling/looking, not less, since the divisions aren't very prominent and is showing many more items at once. Since everything is simply bigger now, it isn't showing any more data than the 'compact' version.

This is the puke factor that most refer to since all the useless **** that used to be hidden inside the app folder is now on view for all to see and can not be removed or hidden. For all intent and purpose, aside from 'dragging things around' on the dashboard, its a VERY static menu.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I find the more sophisticated a power user you are the most problematic Metro is for you.

Amen!

[Wakers]

Amen!

More like the less capable you are at dealing with change the more problematic Metro is for you.

There aren't many users more sophisticated than me, and it took me about 2 hours to tweak Windows 8 to make just as, if not more productive than Win 7.

Basically, you suck at being a power user if you can't adapt to change.

[Stoffel]

The classic menu uses a collapsable folder hierarchy in All Programs to display most content. The visual containers of the new All Programs means an always expanded view that is more scrolling/looking, not less, since the divisions aren't very prominent and is showing many more items at once. Since everything is simply bigger now, it isn't showing any more data than the 'compact' version.

This is the puke factor that most refer to since all the useless **** that used to be hidden inside the app folder is now on view for all to see and can not be removed or hidden. For all intent and purpose, aside from 'dragging things around' on the dashboard, its a VERY static menu.

I'm not sure if you are aware you can use the semantic zoom on the all programs screen, that way you just see all the headers, which looks like folders. Much easier to look if you have a lot of stuff installed

[trag3dy]

The thing I don't get is why people are so against having the option to turn off the full screen start menu.

When I ask why we can't have that option people always tell me "it's the future". So what? How does having the option to turn it off affect you in any way shape or form? And who the hell cares if it makes a little bit of extra work for MS. They are the ones that want your money, not the other way around. They should be happy to put in options that people want.

If I have the option to turn off the full screen start menu in Windows 8 how does that in any way, shape, or form, affect how some one else uses their computer? I can have the start menu I like and so can you. Easy, simple, and we're all happy knowing we have the latest and greatest OS available and we can make it work how we want.

In any case, all of that has nothing to do with the OP.

[Dashel]

That is a good point Stoffel, I didn't note that because it requires a trigger plus at that level it again works like the old one. (hierarchy isn't the default being the main change). So if it works the same, is bigger, but provides less customization options, what makes it easier?

Thanks Wakers, I love that story. What are your credentials again, oh mighty adaptable power user?

[+Warwagon MVC]

More like the less capable you are at dealing with change the more problematic Metro is for you.

There aren't many users more sophisticated than me, and it took me about 2 hours to tweak Windows 8 to make just as, if not more productive than Win 7.

Basically, you suck at being a power user if you can't adapt to change.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

[Stoffel]

The thing I don't get is why people are so against having the option to turn off the full screen start menu.

When I ask why we can't have that option people always tell me "it's the future". So what? How does having the option to turn it off affect you in any way shape or form? And who the hell cares if it makes a little bit of extra work for MS. They are the ones that want your money, not the other way around. They should be happy to put in options that people want.

If I have the option to turn off the full screen start menu in Windows 8 how does that in any way, shape, or form, affect how some one else uses their computer? I can have the start menu I like and so can you. Easy, simple, and we're all happy knowing we have the latest and greatest OS available and we can make it work how we want.

In any case, all of that has nothing to do with the OP.

I believe this is the reasoning:

People in general don't like change, so if you give them the option to turn the whole start screen off, most people will because then they revert back to the good old start menu. At the same time you turn of your gateway to all the Metro apps.

MS really wants the Metro side of Windows to be the future, so if everybody just turns it off without giving it a chance, they get stuck with Win32 legacy stuff forever.

[The Laughing Man]

i wish this thread would stop showing up in my feed.

[Wakers]

That is a good point Stoffel, I didn't note that because it requires a trigger plus at that level it again works like the old one. (hierarchy isn't the default being the main change). So if it works the same, is bigger, but provides less customization options, what makes it easier?

Thanks Wakers, I love that story. What are your credentials again, oh mighty adaptable power user?

Being able to use new software within a couple of hours of getting my hands on it.

20 years of experience and never once resorting to "something is new I hate it!!!!"

[episode]

Implying that users are too stupid to figure out Windows 8. They aren't.

Trust me. They are. Do you do IT? Do you deal with regular office workers (read: only have basic computer skills) on a daily basis? I would bet not. I have people that turn off Aero and go back to the 'Classic' theme in Windows 7 because they can't deal with the changes in Aero.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The thing I don't get is why people are so against having the option to turn off the full screen start menu.

Anybody that spends any time helping relatives with computers will appreciate the benefit of not allowing dramatic changes to the user experience. Many people are instinctively resistant to change and would immediately change such a setting without giving themselves time to adjust to it. Just look at what Microsoft did with Office and the ribbon interface - people were initially resistant but now most people have come around to it and it is highly praised. Metro might not be as much of a clear victory for UI design but there are many compelling benefits - especially over the start menu - and most users will adapt to it, just as they did with Win7's new taskbar.

[spaceelf]

That's not what he said. He said that if you're too stupid to figure out Windows 8, you should stick with Windows 7. That does not mean that only stupid people will stay with Windows 7. You're putting words into his mouth.

Here's what he said (the person you responded to):

Which was in response to this:

Implying that users are too stupid to figure out Windows 8. They aren't.

Reading comprehension on a forum requires that you understand posts in context.

Thank you.

[contextfree]

I believe this is the reasoning:

People in general don't like change, so if you give them the option to turn the whole start screen off, most people will because then they revert back to the good old start menu. At the same time you turn of your gateway to all the Metro apps.

MS really wants the Metro side of Windows to be the future, so if everybody just turns it off without giving it a chance, they get stuck with Win32 legacy stuff forever.

Nah, it's not so much that as they don't like the idea of carrying two versions of something indefinitely into the future. When I was at Microsoft the explanation I heard from members of the Win8 team was this: once you've committed to maintaining two versions of core system UI like the Start menu or the Office ribbon/menus, every time you want to add a feature or make a change to them, you have to figure out how it works and implement it in both versions, so since each change is 2X the work you end up moving half as fast. You could say, "ok, so then only add the new features to the new version and drop the old version after a while" but at that point you're still ultimately forcing people to change, just doing it in slow motion, so why not just do it right away and get it over with.

I don't necessarily always agree with this, btw ...