Why Microsoft Refuses to Name the Windows 8 User Interface


Recommended Posts

According to Microsoft, Windows 8 is ?a bold reimagining of Windows, from the chipset to the user experience.? This reimagining, then, brings a completely new user interface to Windows 8, an UI that is a complete departure from any previous versions of Windows. And since the first unveiling of Windows 8 and throughout its public preview releases, this new UI has been referred to, by the community, as the Metro UI because it follows the Microsoft?s design language that was known as the Metro design language. Microsoft itself referred to apps running on the reimagined Windows 8 platform (WinRT) as Metro Style apps. Why, then, isn?t the term ?Metro? ever referred to in the operating system itself? More importantly, why does Microsoft officially refuse to name the new, reimagined, user interface?

According to Paul Thurrott in Windows Weekly podcast episode 274, when asked, Microsoft personnel would gladly call the classic desktop as the Windows 8 desktop, but they would never call the new UI by any particular name. When asked explicitly what the name of the new UI in Windows 8 is, they just called it Windows. So basically, we have the Windows desktop and, simply, Windows, and not desktop and Metro. At first, this seems quite strange because why would there not be an official name to the new UI in Windows 8; I will admit that I was quite confused by this as well. However, given some time to think about this, I am able to understand what Microsoft is trying to get at.

The trick to all this is to approach Windows 8 in a fundamentally different way. That is, we must not think of Windows 8 as having the Metro UI on top of the Windows 7 desktop, but rather, we should approach Windows 8 as having the Metro UI as the primary UI with desktop as the secondary option. Conceptually, Windows 8 is Metro plus desktop, and not the other way around. Technically, Metro is not primary nor secondary because both desktop and Metro is part of explorer.exe. But if we conceptually see the Metro UI as the primary Windows user interface, there is no need to really call it anything but the Windows UI. For instance, we don?t call the UI in Windows 7 the desktop UI or the Aero UI, but, rather, we call simply call it the Windows 7 user interface. This is the same with Windows XP, or Mac OSX. We call OSX?s Aqua user interface by, well, OSX user interface. The same principle applies to Windows 8, if we consider metro to be the primary UI. Metro, then is the Windows 8 UI, and because the desktop is now secondary in Windows 8, the classic Windows UI in Windows 8 is given a name of ?desktop?.

Paul Thurrott does bring up a valid point that term Windows 8 UI is time bound, whereas something like Metro is timeless. That is, when, say, Windows 9 is released, the term Windows 8 UI will make no sense. I completely agree with this argument. I believe the proper name of the Windows 8 UI is Windows UI. In Windows 7 and prior, for example, the tem Windows UI represented what is now the classic desktop. There was no need to call it Windows 7 UI or Windows Vista UI because the UI paradigm was the same in these versions of Windows. Because the UI paradigm is changing in Windows 8, the metro UI in Windows 8 is being referred to as ?Windows 8 UI? rather than simply ?Windows UI? for differentiation. However, I do think that in the future, the new Metro UI will simply be referred to as the Windows UI. I believe in the future, when we hear the term Windows UI, we will think of what is now called Metro and we will refer to the classic UI as the desktop. Similarly, we will soon refer to Metro Style apps as Windows Apps and the traditional Windows apps as Desktop Apps.

Windows 8 is as much a transitional OS as it is a reimagining of Windows. Hence, terms such as Windows 8 UI or Windows 8 Apps are only temporary, which will eventually be replaced by broader terms such as Windows UI and Windows Apps. Metro, or Modern, or whatever they are calling it these days may be still referred to the design language itself, just like Aero or Aqua is.

metro-metro.jpg

Yeah, I think it's silly to give it a name, doubly so for Windows. You name the GUI if there's an option, like in Linux, or to some extent in OSX (you can run X11, and older versions still had older interfaces floating around). But Windows? It's Windows, no matter how the windows look.

I think it's stuck with Metro UI for most people due to it being referred to as such since its birth

Unless they give it an extremely catchy new name, I`ll be calling it Metro, it's better than "The new tiles start screen thing"

Hey that's a sign from Montreal's Metro station :p The other day I asked my friend if he wanted to take a ride in the modern UI :p

  • Like 2

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

I think the reason they don't want it named something catchy and memorable is so people don't have such a clear target to associate with their fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the new interface elements. Windows 8 may end up being another Vista, but the Metro (whatever) interface is a big deal for Microsoft, and I think they'd rather have the opportunity to evolve it over time, instead of being forced to rip it out completely in all future versions of Windows. If people see all of Windows 8's problems as being exclusive to this "Metro" thing, if people think of it as a clearly defined and separate part of "Windows", then Microsoft may feel a lot of pressure to remove it in Windows 9. If people just decide to hate Windows 8, they may still be more receptive to a more evolved Metro in Windows 9. That's my theory. I don't think it will affect how people perceive Windows 8 and Metro though.

I've meet many people who have said they hated Vista, and then do something ignorant like get a new computer, look at the Windows 7 desktop, and then ask with deep concern, "Is this thing Vista? I don't want Vista." After explaining what Windows 7 is, and discovering that they didn't even know there was a Windows 7, you really do have to wonder how people end up with such strong opinions based on practically zero personal experience. I think Microsoft's marketing department (such as it is) is desperately trying to avoid another Vista disaster. Not the disaster based on Vista's genuine issues, but the disaster based on out of control FUD.

It's painfully obvious that any modern Windows interface is just plastered on top of classic and can peal off at any second. When an error occurs in Windows 7 you can see Aero revert to Basic or in some cases even all the way back to Classic. User Account Control dialog windows always appear in Basic, rather than Aero. As such these new interfaces never felt like a true integral part of Windows. Even though Microsoft disabled classic in Windows 8 and tried to redirect all calls to the old interface, it's still there.

Aqua on the other hand feels like a truly integral part of OS X; the one can't exist without the other. On OS X you'll never see a window without an Aqua border around it. You won't see the interface fail and revert back to something legacy. Ever. It just isn't possible. Note: I'm not talking about apps that run through some kind of virtualization or whatever.

Rationally I fully understand the concept of Windows 8 where the desktop runs as an app within Metro. It's secondary. Much like how Command Prompt in Windows 7 runs on the desktop and not the other way around. It doesn't change the feeling that Metro seems, once again, like something Microsoft stuck on top of the same old Windows in an effort to hide its true form.

But if we conceptually see the Metro UI as the primary Windows user interface, there is no need to really call it anything but the Windows UI. For instance, we don?t call the UI in Windows 7 the desktop UI or the Aero UI, but, rather, we call simply call it the Windows 7 user interface. This is the same with Windows XP, or Mac OSX. We call OSX?s Aqua user interface by, well, OSX user interface.

I think the author is wrong here. Generally I never hear people talk about the "Windows 7 user interface". People refer to it as "Aero". Same goes with OS X. People don't speak of the "OS X user interface", they call it "Aqua". If I read about the "OS X user interface" or "Windows 7 user interface" it's when someone uses it as a synonym to avoid having "Aqua" / "Aero" multiple times in a row. Or simply when someone doesn't know the name. Even today I still read about "Luna" being the Windows XP theme.

Apple themselves actively used the term "Aqua" to refer to the OS X user interface up to Mac OS X Tiger. After that I haven't seen the name being mentioned on the OS X website.

User Account Control dialog windows always appear in Basic, rather than Aero.

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

Huh. Sounds more like a design flaw. Why should I as a user care about all of that?!

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

Yeah I read that excuse before and all I think is: "On OS X you don't see Authentication windows suddenly appear in Platinum or whatever". For me it just confirms that Aero isn't an integral part of Windows to same degree as Aqua is on OS X. Quite frankly it comes across as a design flaw on Microsoft's part.

Huh. Sounds more like a design flaw. Why should I as a user care about all of that?!

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

Are you saying Microsoft feel themselves unable to design a system where this behavior is prevented, yet where at the same time the UAC prompt is drawn in the expected visual style of the rest of the system?

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

This apparently isn't an issue on OS X despite the fact all Authentication windows are proper Aqua. Let's face it, it just confirms that Aero isn't as baked into Windows Vista/7 as it should have been. The sheer fact the entire mess has to revert back to some legacy protocol for security reasons is just ludicrous.

post-128385-0-15821600-1345641073.png

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

Huh? Then what do you call it on other devices?

This apparently isn't an issue on OS X despite the fact all Authentication windows are proper Aqua. Let's face it, it just confirms that Aero isn't as baked into Windows Vista/7 as it should have been.

Are you saying Microsoft feel themselves unable to design a system where this behavior is prevented, yet where at the same time the UAC prompt is drawn in the expected visual style of the rest of the system?

I guess both of you are forgetting the fact that not all systems are even DWM capable (Windows has to run on everything, unlike Apple which has a very strict set of hardware to work with), some users (for whatever reason) prefer it off, and on some versions of the OS DWM isn't even wanted. Servers for example. Hence, it's not part of the "core OS", but a seperate process.

I guess both of you are forgetting the fact that not all systems are even DWM capable (Windows has to run on everything, unlike Apple which has a very strict set of hardware to work with), some users (for whatever reason) prefer it off, and on some versions of the OS DWM isn't even wanted. Servers for example. Hence, it's not part of the "core OS", but a seperate process.

I guess you're forgetting starting Windows 8 Microsoft finally addressed this issue by allowing "Aero" to be software rendered instead of hardware rendered only. Apple did the same with Aqua starting day one, all the way back in 2001. Otherwise my 1999 iMac could have never supported OS X to begin with nor run as a guest in VMware Fusion today. I don't recall it being a problem with OS X Server either.

Is this still neowin.net??? How can we be almost 20 comments into the thread and nobody has said "...that's because they are going to call it BOB". There is a part of me somewhere that is a little dissapointed.

For me. I will still be calling it Metro. They are trying really hard to be clever and change everybodies way of thinking which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is that it seems the majority don't really have an idea of the meaning behind what they are doing. Most is unclear and we cannot see how the interface can wholly improve over WIMP.

WIMP has evolved over the years from the original 1.0 with it's tiled interface. Im my mind it's hilarious that everything seems to be going back there. It's like we have come full circle. (And i'm not trolling, i'm making a comparison)

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

Won't happen.

I guess you're forgetting that with Windows 8 Microsoft finally addressed this issue by allowing "Aero" to be software rendered instead of hardware rendered only.

And yet again, it isn't wanted in every Windows installation. Windows isn't just a desktop OS.

Is this still neowin.net??? How can we be almost 20 comments into the thread and nobody has said "...that's because they are going to call it BOB". There is a part of me somewhere that is a little dissapointed.

Did you see what you did there? :/

And yet again, it isn't wanted in every Windows installation. Windows isn't just a desktop OS.

Windows Server 2012 doesn't allow for Classic anymore either. It utilizes the same (or similar) desktop theme seen in Windows 8. Where does that leave your story? Nowhere.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!