Why does Metro have no status bar?

[FalseAgent]

Not to bash anybody, but MS can't win. If they do the same as Android or iOS, they can't innovate and are just copying. If they decide to do something differently then people are upset because it's different and they want the same as all the others. Very strange if you ask me.

I can't thank you enough for this.

[Colin McGregor]

I know that. The point of a status bat is its visible. Esp on a desktop where there is more than enough space. I'm perfectly fine with how it is now on an Arm tablet, with no desktop. But with desktop apps that have useful information in the status bar, it makes no sense to hide it.

no, its better hidden. I've had iPhone and and android and both UIs are not to my liking. I prefer my WP where the status bar is hidden and can be shown if i want it.

[Defcon]

I disagree. Most of the criticisms I see are mindless and inane and I can't say that I've seen many haters praising the OS for anything.

I'll tell you why I think Windows 8 and Metro are an improvement over previous versions. Large numbers of Windows users (including the majority of casual users) don't use their PCs for more than just internet browsing. For them Metro is a simple interface that allows them to make the most out of their PCs and also simplifies the transition to a tablet. For people who use their PCs for productivity the desktop works exactly the same way as it always has and the Start menu is improved to eliminate the problems caused by trying to squeeze too much onto a tiny menu.

I agree with you there are a huge number of people who just hate Windows for no reason at all, but let's not include them. There also many many experienced users with reasonable objections.

The problem with the 2 interfaces is the interaction - everyone will have to switch between Desktop and Metro, and this is not intuitive at all. It's a very unfriendly OS for new users and the included 'tutorial' is frankly a joke. 'Mkaing transition to a tablet' is not a valid argument, an OS can behave differently on devices, forcing the same touch gestures on a normal pc is stupid, esp when they are so hard to use.

[jakem1]

I agree with you there are a huge number of people who just hate Windows for no reason at all, but let's not include them. There also many many experienced users with reasonable objections.

The problem with the 2 interfaces is the interaction - everyone will have to switch between Desktop and Metro, and this is not intuitive at all. It's a very unfriendly OS for new users and the included 'tutorial' is frankly a joke. 'Mkaing transition to a tablet' is not a valid argument, an OS can behave differently on devices, forcing the same touch gestures on a normal pc is stupid, esp when they are so hard to use.

I don't see why desktop users will have to use Metro-based apps if they don't want to. If you are referring to the Start Screen then I don't think it's unintuitive at all - I think it's a vast improvement over the Start Menu. Easing the transition to a tablet certainly is a vaid argument for those people who are interested in a tablet. I'm much more interested knowing that I can have the same interface on all my computing devices rather than the iOS and Android alternatives that force me to waste time learning different interfaces for no good reason. Windows 8's Metro interface works well with a mouse and keyboard and I expect it will work equally well on a tablet (all the reviews I've seen support this). You're not forced to use touch gestures on a "normal PC" because there are mouse/keyboard alternatives to all the touch gestures.

[mdtaUK]

If you are primarily a Desktop program user, then Windows 8 gives you a new app launcher to replace the Start Menu.

If you are a casual Windows user, then you can live going in and out of Metro apps, and the desktop is like an emulator space for older apps.

I am assuming there are more Casual than Power users, so Windows 8 is a simpler, cleaner, brighter, and easier experience to use. Power users, if they are any good at what they do will adapt, even if they are unwilling at first.

[BajiRav]

I agree with you there are a huge number of people who just hate Windows for no reason at all, but let's not include them. There also many many experienced users with reasonable objections.

The problem with the 2 interfaces is the interaction - everyone will have to switch between Desktop and Metro, and this is not intuitive at all. It's a very unfriendly OS for new users and the included 'tutorial' is frankly a joke. 'Mkaing transition to a tablet' is not a valid argument, an OS can behave differently on devices, forcing the same touch gestures on a normal pc is stupid, esp when they are so hard to use.

I installed RP on my wife's laptop and she as "normal user" as you get. All she uses is browsing, Office, music/video playback. There is not a single metro app she has used and the start screen is hardly anything getting in her way. She has everything pinned to taskbar and I haven't seen her use the start screen for anything more than launching "apps". Start screen(or lack of start button/menu) is not an issue for "normal people" and only people who don't like it forever reason think that "normal people" will have trouble using it. (sorry guys, IE10 + neowin = no enter key)

[Defcon]

On a fresh install, music, pictures and video are all going to open with Metro apps, and once you are in Metro its nearly impossible for a user to figure out how to get back. I've seen people look for a close, back, or Esc, and that doesn't work. There's no taskbar. No one is going to discover the hot corners (even after the tutorial). And only power users know Alt-F4, Alt-Tab etc.

I really don't get what was so hard about adding chrome to Metro apps on a non touch device. It would be trivial to show a X in the upper corner as expected, show a taskbar in the bottom etc. Not doing these things doesn't make the UI any better. It preserves the Metro experience. It's only because of obstinately refusing to acknowledge that people will use Win 8 on a normal pc.

[Dot Matrix]

No one is doing that. Everyone agrees its a fast OS with a lot of nice improvements. Almost all the criticism is the behavior on non-touch devices and MS or the defenders hasn't given a single reason why Metro on desktop is better.

There's plenty of reasons it's better. For one, it's taking advantage of emerging desktop technologies. Kinect for PC, remotes, Xbox Controllers, and yes, even TOUCH. :o It's Microsoft future-proofing Windows.

[Eric Veteran]

Which is why I said 'more limited version'. In practice, if you see the number next to an app on iOS you know it has new content. The only thing live tiles add is showing a snippet preview, you still need to open the app. 'Tiles let you easily see' only for tiles you actually notice. Its not a substitute for a true Notification center.

Why do people have to defend every single thing about Win 8 as if its the best design ever.

Live tiles support badges that not only display numbers but other glyphs such as updates, etc.

[Matthew_Thepc]

No one is going to discover the hot corners (even after the tutorial).

Why not? having the whole screen dedicated to a picture and the words "put your mouse in the corner" sounds like a pretty good tutorial to me O.O

I really don't get what was so hard about adding chrome to Metro apps on a non touch device. It would be trivial to show a X in the upper corner as expected, show a taskbar in the bottom etc.

Because that goes against Metro and would be an (IMO) horrible design choice. Metro is about being minimal and focusing on the content over the chrome. It would be trivial to use the XP-style start button, taskbar, and visual styles in Windows 7 but Microsoft didn't do it. Go figure O:

Not doing these things doesn't make the UI any better. It preserves the Metro experience. It's only because of obstinately refusing to acknowledge that people will use Win 8 on a normal pc.

Not doing these things enhances Metro, and Metro is what Windows 8 is designed for. IMO, I would rather have Microsoft design an OS around a mediocre design and have it consistently use that design then mix a mediocre design with elements from less-than and greater-than designs.

It's only because of obstinately refusing to acknowledge that average users don't actually need these things (have you ever heard a user say OMG? WHERE'S THE CLOSE BUTTON? for an Android or iOS app? have consumers complained about there being no taskbar in iOS or an app-based taskbar in Android? didn't think so.) that you posted your comment.

[Defcon]

Have you ever used iOS or Android on a non-touch device? They are mobile OS's, WIndows is NOT. There is a huge difference, what you said applies to WP7/WP8, and not at all to a desktop/enterprise OS. Have you ever used Win 8 on a normal pc? Or seen a normal user try to? It's a usability nightmare.

Good design is unobtrusive, and functional. Good design is what makes the user more productive, not just what looks pretty.

'Win 8 is designed for Metro' is exactly the problem because MS's implementation of Metro on non-touch is terrible. And guess what, a mediocre design which is consistent is still crap. e.g. if an OS required you to click 5 times to close a window, and used that consistently everywhere, that doesn't make it good.

[Matthew_Thepc]

Have you ever used iOS or Android on a non-touch device? They are mobile OS's, WIndows is NOT. There is a huge difference, what you said applies to WP7/WP8, and not at all to a desktop/enterprise OS.

but now the question is whether normal users want a desktop PC when they can do the same thing with a Surface-type hybrid. Sure - it's probably not going to be too good for enterprises and powerusers, but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about normal users.

Have you ever used Win 8 on a normal pc? Or seen a normal user try to?

It's a usability nightmare.

I dual boot Windows 8 and openSuse on my laptop right now, and I've also installed the Windows 8 RP on two of my families computers. sure, at first they wanted to know how to close an app, but after about 3 minutes of showing them how to bring up the charms menu and drag down from the top, they're using Windows 8 just as well as they were using Windows 7, Vista, and XP. And the RTM has a tutorial in it, so please don't say "but what about users who don't have someone to tell them how to use it?"

Good design is unobtrusive, and functional. Good design is what makes the user more productive, not just what looks pretty.

a taskbar where one is not necessary is obtrusive, and so is essentially forcing all apps to have a visible chrome where one isn't necessary. hiding the chrome and focusing on the content, aka "Metro," IMO, makes the user more productive.

'Win 8 is designed for Metro' is exactly the problem because MS's implementation of Metro on non-touch is terrible. And guess what, a mediocre design which is consistent is still crap. e.g. if an OS required you to click 5 times to close a window, and used that consistently everywhere, that doesn't make it good.

but what if the OS had windows which had a close button on each side (with only one of those actually working), and then having to press the close button sometimes 1 times, sometimes 5, and sometimes 10?

once the user gets used to the global functions (like dragging down to close, opening the charms bar, and opening the appbar), Metro is more effective for the average user since it takes away unnecessary design elements and allows them to use the same keystrokes/gestures to do common things in all metro apps.

Take the Metro IE for an example - with the Desktop IE, you have to top window chrome, the taskbar, and the scrollbar using space that's supposed to be used to display the website. But in the Metro IE, 100% of the screen space is dedicated to the website. reading neowin forums in Metro IE the whole page is dark (I'm using the dark theme :D), but when reading it in the desktop it feels like Neowin is 'framed' - I have purple tabs at the top, and blue bars at the very top and bottom.

Metro IE still enables the normal user to do what they want (to type in a web address and manage tabs) but it is able to do that while giving the website the space it deserves.

[Dot Matrix]

Have you ever used Win 8 on a normal pc? Or seen a normal user try to? It's a usability nightmare.

Good design is unobtrusive, and functional. Good design is what makes the user more productive, not just what looks pretty.

Yes. I've been running both the CP and RP on my laptop and desktop machines. Guess what? The CP got me through a semester of school, and the RP has been running on my desktop (my laptop has been mostly inactive since school has been out for the summer) almost flawlessly (save for a complete re-install after a drive malfunction). It's no different than Windows 7 if you stick to the desktop. Usability nightmare? No, just different. It's a break from the old Windows workflow.

[Defcon]

but now the question is whether normal users want a desktop PC when they can do the same thing with a Surface-type hybrid. Sure - it's probably not going to be too good for enterprises and powerusers, but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about normal users.

I dual boot Windows 8 and openSuse on my laptop right now, and I've also installed the Windows 8 RP on two of my families computers. sure, at first they wanted to know how to close an app, but after about 3 minutes of showing them how to bring up the charms menu and drag down from the top, they're using Windows 8 just as well as they were using Windows 7, Vista, and XP. And the RTM has a tutorial in it, so please don't say "but what about users who don't have someone to tell them how to use it?"

a taskbar where one is not necessary is obtrusive, and so is essentially forcing all apps to have a visible chrome where one isn't necessary. hiding the chrome and focusing on the content, aka "Metro," IMO, makes the user more productive.

but what if the OS had windows which had a close button on each side (with only one of those actually working), and then having to press the close button sometimes 1 times, sometimes 5, and sometimes 10?

once the user gets used to the global functions (like dragging down to close, opening the charms bar, and opening the appbar), Metro is more effective for the average user since it takes away unnecessary design elements and allows them to use the same keystrokes/gestures to do common things in all metro apps.

Take the Metro IE for an example - with the Desktop IE, you have to top window chrome, the taskbar, and the scrollbar using space that's supposed to be used to display the website. But in the Metro IE, 100% of the screen space is dedicated to the website. reading neowin forums in Metro IE the whole page is dark (I'm using the dark theme :D), but when reading it in the desktop it feels like Neowin is 'framed' - I have purple tabs at the top, and blue bars at the very top and bottom.

Metro IE still enables the normal user to do what they want (to type in a web address and manage tabs) but it is able to do that while giving the website the space it deserves.

I find your reasoning very disingenious. If we follow this line of thought, you're saying that all UI's should have no chrome, no UI at all besides content. Do you think no one thought of this in the history of computer science? The reason we have UI's we do today is because they are the most EFFICIENT for people to use, and have been refined for decades.

Touch based UI like Metro is nice. Similarly, voice controlled UI's are great. But there is no evidence they are better suited, more functional or more productive in the state they are today. And most defnitely not on a non touch desktop pc.

Metro simply doesn't belong on a non touch device in its current form - its not designed for it and is a series of compromises. Win 8 Desktop is just another Metro app. You can even drag the Desktop from the top corner - tell me how that makes any kind of sense at all.

Microsoft has made this mistake before, when they tried to force the desktop UI, complete with Start menu and tiny controls, on tiny Windows Mobile devices. Not everything is a pc. But they learnt nothing. Now they are trying to pretend that everything is a tablet. In no other industry do people pretend that all devices and form factors should have the same UI. Imagine how terrible it'd be web sites suddenly decided to show the mobile version on your pc. That's what Metro and Win 8 is like, hiding all advanced functions and forcing a tablet metaphor on everyone.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Have you ever used iOS or Android on a non-touch device? They are mobile OS's, WIndows is NOT. There is a huge difference, what you said applies to WP7/WP8, and not at all to a desktop/enterprise OS. Have you ever used Win 8 on a normal pc? Or seen a normal user try to? It's a usability nightmare.

I have been doing this nearly all day every day for years, and so have countless others, with no sign of a "usability nightmare" anywhere (including countless usability studies). This is a common tactic from the vocal minority to try and invent non-existent problems extrapolated to the majority in order to make a case. It's important not to confuse this with reality.

Good design is unobtrusive, and functional. Good design is what makes the user more productive, not just what looks pretty.

Exactly. This is precisely the goal in getting rid of "chrome" and making that functionality globally and consistently available only when needed/useful/called-for.

'Win 8 is designed for Metro' is exactly the problem because MS's implementation of Metro on non-touch is terrible. And guess what, a mediocre design which is consistent is still crap. e.g. if an OS required you to click 5 times to close a window, and used that consistently everywhere, that doesn't make it good.

This is a straw man. Nobody makes you click 5 times to close a window, and "closing a window" isn't even a scenario, it's a way in which particular scenarios have been implemented in the past.

Microsoft has made this mistake before, when they tried to force the desktop UI, complete with Start menu and tiny controls, on tiny Windows Mobile devices. Not everything is a pc. But they learnt nothing. Now they are trying to pretend that everything is a tablet.

I don't follow. First you're saying that Microsoft made a mistake in the past by trying to "force" a desktop UI onto a phone/PDA. This alone I would actually argue against, as someone who owned many Windows Mobile devices - and thus knows that they didn't follow a desktop metaphor at all (i.e. there were no overlapping windows, no taskbar, no desktop, etc.). Yes it had an always available "Start" button, but it was only superficially related in any way to the desktop Start button, and showed a full-screen (or nearly so) menu.

Second, Windows 8 does exactly the opposite of what you accuse Windows Mobile of having done. Instead of taking a "desktop UI" as you call it and "forcing" it (as you say) onto a new kind of device, we very clearly decided not to do that, which is exactly what many folks here are objecting to! Instead we created something brand new, designed to bridge the gap between desktop and mobile. The two objections are mutually exclusive :-)

In no other industry do people pretend that all devices and form factors should have the same UI.

So cars, trucks, and motorcycles are all steered in completely different ways?

Imagine how terrible it'd be web sites suddenly decided to show the mobile version on your pc.

This is a poor analogy. This would make a lot of sense on a small screen PC, but obviously would not on a large screen, by definition. What you're calling a "mobile version" is really just a website designed exclusively for tiny screens, usually to make up for the fact that they're "normal" site was not designed to scale down that far. Of course, some websites are designed to have a single version which accommodates all screen sizes (the "mobile" and "normal" versions are the same).

That's what Metro and Win 8 is like, hiding all advanced functions and forcing a tablet metaphor on everyone.

You're making an assumption that Windows 8 would not look and work the same even if tablets did not exist. There's no such thing as a "tablet metaphor" by the way. There's a desktop metaphor, many aspects of which are clearly outdated (but will take time to evolve and replace). But things like full-screen apps, and system UI that fades into the background but is always globally accessible... These aren't really metaphors at all.

[Matthew_Thepc]

I find your reasoning very disingenious. If we follow this line of thought, you're saying that all UI's should have no chrome, no UI at all besides content. Do you think no one thought of this in the history of computer science? The reason we have UI's we do today is because they are the most EFFICIENT for people to use, and have been refined for decades.

Nothing's perfect :) And I would actually like to see the chrome be taken to a minimum in all UIs, but that's just a personal preference.

Touch based UI like Metro is nice. Similarly, voice controlled UI's are great. But there is no evidence they are better suited, more functional or more productive in the state they are today. And most defnitely not on a non touch desktop pc.

fair enough that there's no evidence, but has a study ever been done comparing the productivity of someone using a Windows 8-based surface-type device compared with a windows 7 desktop?

Metro simply doesn't belong on a non touch device in its current form - its not designed for it and is a series of compromises. Win 8 Desktop is just another Metro app. You can even drag the Desktop from the top corner - tell me how that makes any kind of sense at all.

You answered that in the sentence right before the question - it's just another Metro app. Now the Desktop is really just the place to run high-end apps and apps that haven't been upgraded to Metro. Why does XP Mode in Windows 7 have a close box? how does that make any kind of sense at all?

Microsoft has made this mistake before, when they tried to force the desktop UI, complete with Start menu and tiny controls, on tiny Windows Mobile devices. Not everything is a pc. But they learnt nothing. Now they are trying to pretend that everything is a tablet. In no other industry do people pretend that all devices and form factors should have the same UI. Imagine how terrible it'd be web sites suddenly decided to show the mobile version on your pc.

The problem with Windows Mobile was they just essentially stuck Windows onto a phone, added some apps, and called it quits. Windows 8 was rebuilt from, essentially, the ground up to work on everything from desktops to hybrids to tablets - they might have designed it with tablets first in their mind, but normal users don't care about what it was designed mostly for - all they care about is if they can get it to open up Facebook or play Solitaire. Which, btw, Windows 8 does very nicely.

That's what Metro and Win 8 is like, hiding all advanced functions and forcing a tablet metaphor on everyone.

hiding advanced functions, yes, it is - and that's not a bad thing. Microsoft's simply making Windows 8 work better for the majority of it's users, who almost never use the advanced features. Why do you need all those advanced features being obtrusive and getting in your way when you're trying to find a simple feature? It makes a lot of sense to me to take the highly-used features and bring them to the front, and then put the least-used features in the background.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

You're making an assumption that Windows 8 would not look and work the same even if tablets did not exist.

Are you saying it would? For example, wouldn't you simply implement a contextual menu here (I realize there's an infinite edge, but it would still be faster to have an option right beneath the mouse cursor, wouldn't it?):

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Are you saying it would? For example, wouldn't you simply implement a contextual menu here (I realize there's an infinite edge, but it would still be faster to have an option right beneath the mouse cursor):

Well, first off, I meant in a broader sense (i.e. full-screen apps and Start menu, for example). For specific details, I cannot speak for design decisions I wasn't involved in. Personally, I've never used that button. I never unpin anything I expect to actually use, so my Start screen always has everything I'll ever need. If I do need anything else I invoke it using search (and searching for nothing shows the same All Apps view).

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

Well, first off, I meant in a broader sense (i.e. full-screen apps and Start menu, for example). For specific details, I cannot speak for design decisions I wasn't involved in. Personally, I've never used that button. I never unpin anything I expect to actually use, so my Start screen always has everything I'll ever need. If I do need anything else I invoke it using search (and searching for nothing shows the same All Apps view).

Fair enough. It's not just the Start screen though. In fact, if I am seeing this correctly, it's only the start screen where there's at least an infinite edge. In other (Microsoft supplied) apps you have to target the exact location of the button. In some apps the toolbar vanishes if you click somewhere below the button, in others, simply nothing will happen. It works quite inconsistently actually. You can't move between buttons while holding down the mouse button either.

[Defcon]

One of my issues is MS has always been a company which introduced change for a reason. When they added the Ribbon, it was met with widespread hatred. But they did extensive user studies with the Ribbon to decide which was a more productive UI, and shared those studies so the results were there for everyone to see.

With Win 8 I am not aware of any usability studies that measure the productivity on a non touch device vs Win 7. The magic word in Win 8 development has been 'telemetry' - they look at what features were least used, and remove them. This is of course a terrible way to do things. Using MS's own example, Word has a million features most of which are hardly ever used. When the Word team was asked why these rare features were present, the reply was that any given feature might be used by very few people, but all those people used different features, so everything was important.

Metro being more usable or better is not proven, we simply have to take MS's word for it since we have no option. This is in stark contrast to other decisions such as the new Explorer changes, where they did publish usability data on why it's better.

Win 8 removes power user features, customization, user control - all because the majority didn't use them (of course!). These advanced features don't need to interrupt a normal user. e.g. they took away the ability to customize Window colors, which is a huge deal to a certain segment. Everyone else is free to ignore that option if they want.

I guess I have a fundamental problem with architecting an entire OS around the concept of touch, relegating desktop to a 2nd class citizen, and adding workarounds (I'll be kind and not call them hacks) to make it work on a non-touch device. I have an even bigger problem when WinRT, the next gen Windows API, is flawed and limited to only Metro apps, as if no one would ever want to write a desktop app again.

Well, first off, I meant in a broader sense (i.e. full-screen apps and Start menu, for example). For specific details, I cannot speak for design decisions I wasn't involved in. Personally, I've never used that button. I never unpin anything I expect to actually use, so my Start screen always has everything I'll ever need. If I do need anything else I invoke it using search (and searching for nothing shows the same All Apps view).

I believe the question is why can't the context menu be shown as a regular context menu on a non-touch device. We know Metro can display context menu's just fine, e.g. if you right click on a network connection name you get a Metro context menu. The decision to show this as a bar is just because every Metro app behaves as if it was running on a tablet, thus it sacrifices usability.

[Wyn6]

All of these arguments come down to one simple thing... preference. That's it in a nutshell. There are those who prefer Windows 8 and those who don't. Those who don't prefer it, claim that it affects their productivity and is the worst thing ever. Those who do prefer it, claim that it hasn't affected their productivity and is the best thing ever.

These threads go back and forth, one side trying to convince the other or prove the other wrong. And, out of all theses threads and hundreds of pages and thousands of responses, replies, remarks, comments, statements, questions, retorts, and attacks... no one has swayed anyone. Or, at least very few anyway.

Most of the claims, to date, are subjective and not factual. Claiming that it does or does not affect your productivity is subjective even though it may be true for you. But, I get it. Nerds love debate, especially on the internet. But, the fact is... it's done. MS has shipped the OS to OEMs and it will be here in a short time. It cannot be changed now and most likely will not be changed in the future. That is to say, they're not going backwards. Say goodbye to the old desktop and the way we've been computing for the last 20+ years.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the perceived benefits and detriments of Windows 8. But, this is the future of computing. Maybe not the only one, but the computer as you knew it is dead. It just isn't gone yet.

Alas, 20th century computer. I knew him well, Horatio.

[Matthew_Thepc]

All of these arguments come down to one simple thing... preference. That's it in a nutshell. There are those who prefer Windows 8 and those who don't. Those who don't prefer it, claim that it affects their productivity and is the worst thing ever. Those who do prefer it, claim that it hasn't affected their productivity and is the best thing ever.

These threads go back and forth, one side trying to convince the other or prove the other wrong. And, out of all theses threads and hundreds of pages and thousands of responses, replies, remarks, comments, statements, questions, retorts, and attacks... no one has swayed anyone. Or, at least very few anyway.

Most of the claims, to date, are subjective and not factual. Claiming that it does or does not affect your productivity is subjective even though it may be true for you. But, I get it. Nerds love debate, especially on the internet. But, the fact is... it's done. MS has shipped the OS to OEMs and it will be here in a short time. It cannot be changed now and most likely will not be changed in the future. That is to say, they're not going backwards. Say goodbye to the old desktop and the way we've been computing for the last 20+ years.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the perceived benefits and detriments of Windows 8. But, this is the future of computing. Maybe not the only one, but the computer as you knew it is dead. It just isn't gone yet.

Alas, 20th century computer. I knew him well, Horatio.

:D agreed, it's pretty much pointless, but it's nice to be able to argue about it

[Dashel]

It's a break from the old Windows workflow.

I didn't think it effected anyone's workflow. ;)

There you go again with the 'PC as you know it is dead' flamebait.

I never unpin anything I expect to actually use, so my Start screen always has everything I'll ever need. If I do need anything else I invoke it using search (and searching for nothing shows the same All Apps view).

That's pretty ****ed up.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

That's pretty ****ed up.

Huh?

[Unrealistic]

With Win 8 I am not aware of any usability studies that measure the productivity on a non touch device vs Win 7. The magic word in Win 8 development has been 'telemetry' - they look at what features were least used, and remove them. This is of course a terrible way to do things. Using MS's own example, Word has a million features most of which are hardly ever used. When the Word team was asked why these rare features were present, the reply was that any given feature might be used by very few people, but all those people used different features, so everything was important.

Metro being more usable or better is not proven, we simply have to take MS's word for it since we have no option. This is in stark contrast to other decisions such as the new Explorer changes, where they did publish usability data on why it's better. Win 8 removes power user features, customization, user control - all because the majority didn't use them (of course!). These advanced features don't need to interrupt a normal user. e.g. they took away the ability to customize Window colors, which is a huge deal to a certain segment. Everyone else is free to ignore that option if they want.

This is exactly how I feel and sums it up very nicely. Everyone uses their computers differently, and it looks like some users are in for a rude awakening while others are much luckier.

Personally speaking, I redesigned my "Windows experience" around the time Vista came out. I still used a quick launch, but I had many things pinned to my Start Menu. I didn't like all of the "clutter" on my desktop; there were apps I preferred to keep hidden, but were always two clicks away from being used. When Windows 7 came out, this behavior of mine increased. I have 5 items pinned to my Superbar and everything else is tucked away nicely on my Start Menu. I have them in alphabetical order, they have their own lists and I can still keep my desktop clean. Occasionally, there will be an application I don't have pinned and for that, I would use the Start Menu search.

I started this new form of behavior in the Fall of 2006. I'm approaching six years of this way of utilizing my desktop and it has been taken away. Am I a minority? Absolutely, but the fact is, this quote is the exact reason why people are upset. Windows 8 is going to significantly alter my desktop approach and I honestly don't know if the changes are going to be worth it.

Also, why should I relearn my behaviors when at work I use and will continue to use Windows 7 (and OS X)? I certainly don't want to have to learn something that won't even translate to where I spend most of my computer work. There are many inconistencies that I haven't even addressed, but others already have. Brandon, as much as I respect you, your work for Microsoft and your willingness to help this community for years, you are sadly seeing it from the "other" side. You have a vested interest in this product and are going to try your hardest to make people see your opinions, but you are talking to people who know how to use computers.

If I want to always be dictated on how I can use my computer, I would be 100% Apple. I don't want Microsoft going to these because they are scared of how the market has been moving lately.