Does anyone run Win8 and avoid Metro UI happily?

[fix-this!]

my way of avoiding metro is to continue to run w7.

[jagowar]

I spent 95% of my time in metro.... the only time I really go back to the desktop now is when I want to open a file off my network shares or to play a desktop game (mainly diablo3/starcraft).

[Astrum]

my way of avoiding metro is to continue to run w7.

And that is sad if Win8 is truly faster and more reliable.

[ObiWanToby]

So how does it work with games? Starcraft works? BF3 works?

Tempted to try this on my gaming machine. It is so fast on my test machines!

[fix-this!]

And that is sad if Win8 is truly faster and more reliable.

it's neither faster or more realible.

[anidais]

I don't avoid the new start screen. To be honest, I don't miss the old start menu. When I think of it, I only used the start menu to launch programs, search and shut down / restart my PC. I can still do that on the new start screen, although shutting down and restarting takes more steps than before (but I'm not too worried about it). In my opinion the new start screen brings a new and fresh experience to Windows. Getting live updates from the apps I use all in one place is great. I understand that some people don't like the changes Microsoft has made, and I respect that. I guess those who don't like Windows 8 can stay on Windows 7 or change to another OS. Whether you like it or not, the start menu had to change someday. Nothing lasts forever.

[Jygoro]

I think so far I'm using 90% Desktop 10% Metro. I think the key is those notifications toasts that appear when you open a determined extension file the first time. If you choose the desktop App you won't see Metro except Start Sceen, otherwise you will jump from Metro to the Desktop in a very jarring way.

So I don't need to uninstall Metro Apps, some are used by others (like Weather) and don't bother me.

I did learn to love the new Start Screen and is way faster than the Start Menu. No more folder labyrinths with the name of the Developer (lol) instead of the program's name.

You only have to know is better to name columns, especially the last one, because otherwise installing a suit like Office/VisualStudio could be a mess of tiles everywhere.

it's neither faster or more realible.

Well, in my 2008 PC it is.

[Order_66]

Perhaps I am missing something but can someone explain how windows 8 is more reliable than 7 is? With 7 I have no reliability issues at all, everything works, no crashes or stutters or any quirky behavior at all, IMO 7 is the best operating system ever created when it comes to reliability, how can 8 be considered more reliable or is 7 crashing for everyone else?

[Jygoro]

Perhaps I am missing something but can someone explain how windows 8 is more reliable than 7 is? With 7 I have no reliability issues at all, everything works, no crashes or stutters or any quirky behavior at all, IMO 7 is the best operating system ever created when it comes to reliability, how can 8 be considered more reliable or is 7 crashing for everyone else?

Every PC is a totally different world. In this same PC windows 7 had a nasty bug with the sound that dies randomly while listening flash videos. Fixed in Win8. Also hibernating the PC always meant problems in Win7, not happens with Win8.

[BajiRav]

Perhaps I am missing something but can someone explain how windows 8 is more reliable than 7 is? With 7 I have no reliability issues at all, everything works, no crashes or stutters or any quirky behavior at all, IMO 7 is the best operating system ever created when it comes to reliability, how can 8 be considered more reliable or is 7 crashing for everyone else?

So nothing can be better than Windows 7? As far as my experience with Windows 8 goes, I think the file operations can now be reliably cancelled I.e. they immediately get cancelled instead of staying on "Cancelling..." that 7 likes to do especially for network transfers.

Anecdotal experience though, never had much problem with reliability since Vista.

[drazgoosh]

I don't avoid Metro,but at the same time, I don't go out of my way to use it. If it happens to be of use, sure I'll use it, otherwise I continue using the OS like I have done for many years. Sometimes it might be quicker to check general information on the Start screen and so I'll use Metro. Doesn't really affect me negatively at all.

[Astrum]

I don't avoid Metro,but at the same time, I don't go out of my way to use it. If it happens to be of use, sure I'll use it, otherwise I continue using the OS like I have done for many years. Sometimes it might be quicker to check general information on the Start screen and so I'll use Metro. Doesn't really affect me negatively at all.

It does not sound like a new exciting experience, does it?

Perhaps I am missing something but can someone explain how windows 8 is more reliable than 7 is? With 7 I have no reliability issues at all, everything works, no crashes or stutters or any quirky behavior at all, IMO 7 is the best operating system ever created when it comes to reliability, how can 8 be considered more reliable or is 7 crashing for everyone else?

I trust Microsoft that they should produce better system in all technical aspects even if we take Metro apart.

[drazgoosh]

A new OS doesn't have to be exciting. I thoroughly enjoy using Windows 8 and prefer it quite a lot more than Windows 7. So in general it's a winner.

[McKay]

I don't avoid it, I just don't use Metro Apps, I keep the Metro Calender on my Startscreen because it tells me events, I treat it like a Gadget. My only other apps are classic programs that I use.

[PGHammer]

Perhaps I am missing something but can someone explain how windows 8 is more reliable than 7 is? With 7 I have no reliability issues at all, everything works, no crashes or stutters or any quirky behavior at all, IMO 7 is the best operating system ever created when it comes to reliability, how can 8 be considered more reliable or is 7 crashing for everyone else?

Is it the WinRT apps (as opposed to the Win32 applications that you used with 7) that are crashing?

If that is indeed the case, what you aren't taking into account is that WinRT (as an API/application platform) is far more *beta* than the rest of the OS. The Win32 side of Windows 8 is actually more stable (not less) than that of Windows 7 - that is, in fact, the single biggest surprise when it comes to the operating system.

I actually didn't move the needle when it came to evaluating Windows 8 - I evaluated it the same way I had evaluated Windows 7. I looked at backward-compatibility first and foremost - with software from the previous version of Windows, and with my hardware. (That would actually be even more critical for desktop users and those using laptops and notebooks, as opposed to tablet and slate-PC users.) WinRT is actually the least-critical metric in my judgment of Windows 8 - as I would think would be the case for any non-touch-PC user.

Try using the *same* applications you would use normally with Windows 7, instead of venturing out into the land of WinRT.

[PGHammer]

I don't avoid it, I just don't use Metro Apps, I keep the Metro Calender on my Startscreen because it tells me events, I treat it like a Gadget. My only other apps are classic programs that I use.

That's what I've been doing - other than games, AccuWeather.com (and now Mail), I don't use any WinRT apps. I use Mail for GMail (which is also my spam-collector) - the *toast* popups that Mail has let me know at-a-glance about any genuine non-spam that arrives in my GMail inbox (which is far better than Outlook is at it). AccuWeather tells me at-a-glance about weather-related alerts (I need not open it once I configure it - I just glance at its tile). A warning comes in, like Mail, it alerts me via toasting. (The closest any Win32 application comes to this is AWS WeatherBug.)

[MorganX]

I don't avoid it, I just don't use Metro Apps, I keep the Metro Calender on my Startscreen because it tells me events, I treat it like a Gadget. My only other apps are classic programs that I use.

That is just so ugly. No offense, most Start Pages are. There's just nothing there. argggh! Gotta third-party mod the background and icons.

[Andrea Borman]

I have just installed Windows 8 Release Preview(RP for short.) And i have got Classic Shell which gives you the start button and Windows XP start menu. As well as the Classic and Windows 7 start menu.

And so I only see the Metro start screen at start up but not any other time. Classic Shell and other start menu software like Start Menu 7,and others, give you the start button and traditional Windows 7 or Windows XP start menu on your desktop.And the Metro start menu runs in the background, as you can no longer disable the Metro theme, like you could in Windows 8 DP.

But the Windows 7 start menu from Classic Shell and other start menu software, takes over all of the start menu functions on Windows 8 that you have on Windows 7, and Windows XP. Here is Classic Shell on my Windows 8 RP. Andrea Borman.

[contextfree]

To me on desktops or larger screened laptops Metro style apps are just fancy gadgets that live off the left side of my screen. I like having them because they are isolated and suspended when not running, so I can use lots of them without impacting the system (or even cluttering the taskbar). I just grab one from the switcher or the start screen, check something or do something simple, and then click in the upper left corner to go back to the desktop. It's a bit like I might have a phone next to me while using a PC and check mail on it sometimes, but there are some advantages such as being able to use your keyboard to enter text, being able to click on a link and have it open in the desktop, etc. However for integrating into any more involved workflow I would stick to desktop apps.

It's annoying that most of the defaults are initially set to Metro style apps. I don't think that is what most people will want on non-tablet/netbook PCs.

The start screen is a different animal and I prefer it to the start menu. Having it fullscreen makes sense because you're normally starting a new app, not interacting with ones you have open. Yeah people have brought up possible situations where you would want to consult a document to see what program to open, or whatever, but I personally haven't ever had that happen, and in the rare cases when it might it'd be easy enough to work around anyway.

[FloatingFatMan]

I have just installed Windows 8 Release Preview(RP for short.) And i have got Classic Shell which gives you the start button and Windows XP start menu. As well as the Classic and Windows 7 start menu.

And so I only see the Metro start screen at start up but not any other time. Classic Shell and other start menu software like Start Menu 7,and others, give you the start button and traditional Windows 7 or Windows XP start menu on your desktop.And the Metro start menu runs in the background, as you can no longer disable the Metro theme, like you could in Windows 8 DP.

But the Windows 7 start menu from Classic Shell and other start menu software, takes over all of the start menu functions on Windows 8 that you have on Windows 7, and Windows XP. Here is Classic Shell on my Windows 8 RP. Andrea Borman.

Yikes! That is THE butt ugliest desktop I've ever seen! You can barely read those icon labels!

Personally, I don't care over much for Metro, and I DO use Classic Star Menu, but my desktop sure as hell isn't as fugly as that monster! :p

[articuno1au]

^ This.

I very rarely see my start screen. I use it for the live tiles, and go back to desktop without spending any time on it.

I quite like it overall though. It means I can manage what's on it and group things much more logically (for me anyway).

Each to their own though

[theyarecomingforyou]

Metro Start is a decent replacement to the start menu, once you get used to it. If you take advantage of the grouping and naming system then you can display hundreds of apps for quick launch, with the All Programs menu and search facilities for the rest. At the end of the day how often do you really use it? Most people will use it for less than 1% of their computing experience, the rest being spent on the desktop. I just don't consider it to be worth the effort, especially as there are potential security concerns when modifying system files.

I know it's not the advice the OP was after but I honestly recommend taking time and getting used to Metro Start. As for Metro apps, they can be completely avoided and considering how bad most of the included apps are that's really not a bad idea.

[Zlain]

I seriously can't think of any apps in Metro that are better than their desktop counterparts.

Metro Start is a decent replacement to the start menu, once you get used to it. If you take advantage of the grouping and naming system then you can display hundreds of apps for quick launch, with the All Programs menu and search facilities for the rest. At the end of the day how often do you really use it? Most people will use it for less than 1% of their computing experience, the rest being spent on the desktop. I just don't consider it to be worth the effort, especially as there are potential security concerns when modifying system files.

I know it's not the advice the OP was after but I honestly recommend taking time and getting used to Metro Start. As for Metro apps, they can be completely avoided and considering how bad most of the included apps are that's really not a bad idea.

This is a top post and exactly sums up my thoughts.

[.Neo]

At this point the default Metro apps are of terrible quality. They're extremely lacking in features, take forever to start and just aren't a serious replacement for their previous desktop counterparts. Really hoping this will change drastically before Windows 8 goes RTM.

[argonite]

At this point the default Metro apps are of terrible quality. They're extremely lacking in features, take forever to start and just aren't a serious replacement for their previous desktop counterparts. Really hoping this will change drastically before Windows 8 goes RTM.

This, definitely this. Honestly, there are only two barriers to Metro adoption:

1) What people are used to.

2) Quality of apps.

The first one will be resolved over time (think Office 2007 Ribbon). If Microsoft remains committed to their idea, and makes it consistent across all their properties, then people will swallow. It might not look nice to everyone, but it'll look unified at least.

The second one will hopefully improve by RTM. Then I'll take Metro in stride.

I don't like Metro personally, but I am optimistic about it and I'm willing to give Microsoft a chance to show me its potential, rather than avoid change.