pic How Pro Windows 8 users want Anti Windows 8 users to use Windows 8

[rhianntp]

Lovely example of how ridiculous windows 8 is .. hehe :)

[Ryster]

Lovely example of how ridiculous windows 8 is .. hehe :)

And here's somebody who's just read the first post, watched the video, and then jumped right to page 9 without bothering to read the topic where the consensus is that it's not ridiculous, it's just different and requires you to be open to change to learn the new way of doing it.

Notice in the video (with the childish sound effects) how he's pressing the Windows Key to bring up the start screen before he starts typing the search term. Pressing Win+W instead would take him straight into searching for settings. This isn't ridiculous, it's just different and needs to be gotten used to. Just as the whole concept of pressing the windows key then using the search box was new (different from XP) in Windows Vista/7 and required getting used to.

Winkey, then start typing = Search for Apps.

Winkey, then start typing, then press down arrow and enter = Search for Settings.

Winkey, then start typing, then click Settings = Search for Settings.

Winkey+W, then start typing = Search for Settings.

[WinMunkee]

and The Desktop + Metro isn't messy?

It's really not and is quite simple to get used to. You spend as much time using the start screen as you would using the start menu. Personally, I like the fact that you can label and section off the menu, it makes it more useful than the current start menu. I just wish you could modify the colors and tile images. I'm sure someone will come up with something that allows you to do that. I don't use search that often, but when I do, I find the seperation of Applications, settings, and files to be useful. A lot better than just plopping a bunch of crap in front of your face without any sort of distinction. I prefer organization.

[+Warwagon MVC]

And here's somebody who's just read the first post, watched the video, and then jumped right to page 9 without bothering to read the topic where the consensus is that it's not ridiculous, it's just different and requires you to be open to change to learn the new way of doing it.

Notice in the video (with the childish sound effects) how he's pressing the Windows Key to bring up the start screen before he starts typing the search term. Pressing Win+W instead would take him straight into searching for settings. This isn't ridiculous, it's just different and needs to be gotten used to. Just as the whole concept of pressing the windows key then using the search box was new (different from XP) in Windows Vista/7 and required getting used to.

Winkey, then start typing = Search for Apps.

Winkey, then start typing, then press down arrow and enter = Search for Settings.

Winkey, then start typing, then click Settings = Search for Settings.

Winkey+W, then start typing = Search for Settings.

Pressing the Windows key or pressing the start button is instinctual. Knowing that windows key + W actually does something is something you would have to look up or have someone tell you, it's not something someone would automatically know.

[Ryster]

Pressing the Windows key or pressing the start button is instinctual. Knowing that windows key + W actually does something is something you would have to look up or have someone tell you, it's not something someone would automatically know.

It's only instinctual now because you learned it once. At one time those methods were new too. Learning Windows Key+W now is no different to learning Windows Key when Windows 95 launched, no matter how much you profess otherwise.

[BoDEAN]

This topic.............huh? :/

[fix-this!]

Ill say this about w8 and windows phone...it sure sparks alot of debate lol.

[Chris123NT]

Ok let me explain the joke. In EVERY thread all the pro metro users tell the anti Metro users.... If you don't like the Metro screen "It's simple!!! Just pin the apps you use to your taskbar!"

I haven't seen anyone say that. Listen, I used to be very weary about the start screen. In the developer preview I HATED it, didn't like it much in the consumer preview either, but after that I decided to give it an honest chance and surprisingly I got used to it and now I really don't have any problem with it. I still respect people who don't like it, but I ask most of them to just try it for a week and see what they think. The default configuration of the start screen sucks, but if you customize it you'd be surprised how good you can make it.

[remixedcat]

Ill say this about w8 and windows phone...it sure sparks alot of debate lol.

TrollOS

[deactivated_]

If you don't know that it's useless to close Metro apps... [childish insult snipped]

If it is so useless to close Metro apps, then answer two simple questions?

1) Why don't they all come 'prelaunched', or already running?

2) Why provide the ability to close an app once launched if it is so useless to close?

[~Johnny]

If it is so useless to close Metro apps, then answer two simple questions?

1) Why don't they all come 'prelaunched', or already running?

2) Why provide the ability to close an app once launched if it is so useless to close?

1 - Because that just wastes a ridiculous amount of CPU time, and there's not enough RAM for that.

2 - There's not much reason other than removing them from the program / task switcher menus.

At the end of the day, if the Metro app isn't on screen, it's not using CPU - and Windows will get rid of it when it needs memory. You don't need to close them yourself, just like iOS and Windows Phone.

[deactivated_]

1 - Because that just wastes a ridiculous amount of CPU time, and there's not enough RAM for that.

That's my point here. So it's NOT useless to close a Metro app? Since having them all running even if you don't need them wastes CPU time and RAM?

[Jose_49]

That's my point here. So it's NOT useless to close a Metro app? Since having them all running even if you don't need them wastes CPU time and RAM?

Worry not. You won't have more than 9 running. Windows closes automatically the first instance used

[deactivated_]

Worry not. You won't have more than 9 running. Windows closes automatically the first instance used

Oh, I'm not worried at all. I just felt the need to call people out for making blanket all-encompassing statements that have no basis in practical reality. Seems to be lots of that going around on both sides of the Windows 8 debate lately.

[Ryster]

If it is so useless to close Metro apps, then answer two simple questions?

1) Why don't they all come 'prelaunched', or already running?

2) Why provide the ability to close an app once launched if it is so useless to close?

1) Because that would tie up your computer's hard drive for minutes after booting up while it loaded all the apps into memory.

2) For the same reason there's a discoverable way to close apps in iOS and Android. If the app locks up for example you would want to close it, or if you have so many open that you run out of system resources

In day to day use, you never need to close an app. Your example is based on the assumption that you would need every single app on your computer.all the time. This is a false assumption, and you're just being argumentative.

Oh, I'm not worried at all. I just felt the need to call people out for making blanket all-encompassing statements that have no basis in practical reality. Seems to be lots of that going around on both sides of the Windows 8 debate lately.

What part of "they get tomestoned when not running in the foreground" and "windows closes them automatically if it needs more resources" has no basis in practical reality? Again, you're just fabricating an argument where one doesn't need to be. There's a word for that, trolling.

[~Johnny]

That's my point here. So it's NOT useless to close a Metro app? Since having them all running even if you don't need them wastes CPU time and RAM?

Uh, no. They use no CPU if it's not on screen, so it's not wasting CPU. (I was talking only of prelaunching you suggested - which of course would use CPU at bootup just to get the applications prelaunched).

And them holding RAM in the background is meaningless - as soon as Windows see's it's running out of RAM, it will automatically close the Metro apps for you. It's generally meaningless for a USER to close Metro apps, because either way they don't have any effect on you if they're not on screen. They just take up space in the program switcher :p

[deactivated_]

1) Because that would tie up your computer's hard drive for minutes after booting up while it loaded all the apps into memory.

2) For the same reason there's a discoverable way to close apps in iOS and Android. If the app locks up for example you would want to close it, or if you have so many open that you run out of system resources

In day to day use, you never need to close an app. Your example is based on the assumption that you would need every single app on your computer.all the time. This is a false assumption, and you're just being argumentative.

Oh I agree that you would definitely NOT want them all pre-loaded, just in the same way people may wish to not leave them running all the time. And definitely people would go flipping nuts if there *wasn't* a close option.

I won't agree I'm being argumentative, at least any more or less so than anyone else in this thread. :D

I was calling someone out with those two questions who was making a blanket statement that supposedly covered all situations everywhere for every person's opinion. I personally *don't* want them all running all the time, and definitely *don't* want them to remove the ability to close them.

My whole original point anyway was that it's counter intuitive for a non-touch/tablet standard desktop user to close a running Metro app without using a keyboard shortcut. Seems like we've strayed from that.

[Anthonyd]

That's my point here. So it's NOT useless to close a Metro app? Since having them all running even if you don't need them wastes CPU time and RAM?

Please read this : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/04/17/reclaiming-memory-from-metro-style-apps.aspx

It's useless to close Metro apps because they don't use any resources once they are put into the background. How do you conclude that all apps should be started when you log in? THAT IS GENIUS! There's a cost to start them, but there's no cost to let them running into the background.

[Nothing Here]

Wait, so warwagon's a troll? Nah. Really? No way. Way? Really? Nah. Maybe that needs it's own thread. ;)

[MorganX]

If it is so useless to close Metro apps, then answer two simple questions?

1) Why don't they all come 'prelaunched', or already running?

2) Why provide the ability to close an app once launched if it is so useless to close?

Good points, good points. It's also often more productive to just close an apps. Especially as fast as systems are now, relaunching is just as fast as switching, at least if you have an SSD like every hardcore user should. If you don't have SSD, you probably don't need to be complaining about Metro's minor annoyances, lol.

I would prefer the more efficient X or just let me double click in that corner. The drag to bottom is a drag and clearly designed for tablet use. Having said that, it's not biggie on my 27" monitor, everything is so fast and GPU accelerated just grab the title and drag to the bottom. The bigger issue is with Metro, when you close an app, you go back to the Start Page and not the previous app which IMO sucks.

1) Open a new email in the mail app

2) Change your mind about it and close the email draft by dragging to bottom of screen

3) Instead of going back to mail app to continue working in mail you go back to Start Page = Just plain dumb and inefficient

Mind you, this is RP not RTM so maybe things change. But if this is indicative of how all Metro apps will behave, not good for real apps.

[MorganX]

Please read this : http://blogs.msdn.co...style-apps.aspx

It's useless to close Metro apps because they don't use any resources once they are put into the background. How do you conclude that all apps should be started when you log in? THAT IS GENIUS! There's a cost to start them, but there's no cost to let them running into the background.

It defies physics that they aren't using "any" resources. Even after reading the article I would say they release all resources. The resources it does use in suspended state are clearly negligible and I think this is a non-issue and just a matter of preference. Just thought I'd get that in though. If nothing else the snapshot of its current state on the app bar uses "some" resource, regardless of how minute.

[Anthonyd]

It defies physics that they aren't using "any" resources. Even after reading the article I would say they release all resources. The resources it does use in suspended state are clearly negligible and I think this is a non-issue and just a matter of preference. Just thought I'd get that in though. If nothing else the snapshot of its current state on the app bar uses "some" resource, regardless of how minute.

The article shows how the memory usage (RAM) ins't an issue.

For the CPU usage, Metro apps in the background are using 0% of the CPU because the scheduler doesn't give them CPU time, it's as simple as that.

[MorganX]

The article shows how the memory usage (RAM) ins't an issue.

For the CPU usage, Metro apps in the background are using 0% of the CPU because the scheduler doesn't give them CPU time, it's as simple as that.

That's not quite the same as doesn't use "any" resources. However, I agree that with regards to resource availability, it is virtually useless to close them. It is a non-issue and just a matter of preference.

[deactivated_]

Please read this : http://blogs.msdn.co...style-apps.aspx

It's useless to close Metro apps because they don't use any resources once they are put into the background. How do you conclude that all apps should be started when you log in? THAT IS GENIUS! There's a cost to start them, but there's no cost to let them running into the background.

I would, along with a large majority I bet, complain loudly if all applications started with the computer, but was trying to make a point about the logic of 'closing an app is useless', by turning such hyperbolic nonsense around in the other direction.

Original point you may have missed in the comments was: I was being berated for even *wanting* to ever close an app.

So how about this then? If Microsoft had made it impossible to close an app once launched (unless you did a full reboot, since we agree we wouldn't want them all loaded on boot), what would your opinions on that be?

Goodness I could see all the forum topics about that... lol

[HSoft]

It's 2 days to get proficient at it not 2 days of "I can't work". It's still Windows for **** sakes.

In that example, it would be 2 days of classes for people to get proficient in Win8 (our analysis was actually less than 2 days worth of training but that's an aside).

That's the cost of the class (setting up systems, trainers etc) and no most people don't work whilst in class so the cost of 2 days of essentially zero productivity, etc. etc.

So yes its easily well into 6 figures when you have over 40K people to consider.