Google changing Chrome's Metro appearance in Windows 8 to mimic its operating system

Microsoft and Google have been at odds in recent months, particularly regarding mobile devices. Google refuses to make new Windows 8 and Windows Phone apps, and Microsoft is reportedly asking HTC to offer Windows Phone versions of its Android smartphones. Now Google is looking to take advantage of the Metro environment in Windows 8 with a new version of its Chrome browser.

The developer version of Google's Chrome browser now allows users to run the application in Windows 8's Metro environment with an interface similar to the company's Internet-enhanced Chrome operating system. The similarities largely end in appearance, however, as the only major feature of the operating system available with the browser's Metro environment is an application bar that is essentially nothing more than a glorified bookmark bar, opening websites.

Multiple browser windows can be opened, but the Chrome operating system's Linux kernel is obviously absent, as are any file management capabilities and significant offline features.

The Verge, which first published the news, claims the "functionality is identical to Chrome OS," though many of the operating system's more unique features – such as its quick booting and user management – are absent. Icons can't be placed on the "desktop" the browser uses, background images can't be set, taskbar icons can't be moved and the Chrome OS transparent interface is also unavailable.

The current stable version of Google's Chrome browser allows users to launch it in the Metro environment, though the developer version simply adds the ability to launch multiple browser windows (and their own tabs) and a taskbar that can only open website links. The faux taskbar is essentially a larger version of Google's already-available Chrome app launcher for Windows.

It's possible the new features could entice users to Google's operating system, though the larger benefit is the emphasis of Google Apps – already featured noticeably in the desktop version of Chrome, though not as prominently as the Metro version.

Source: Google Chrome via The Verge

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple CEO Tim Cook honors second anniversary of Steve Jobs' demise

Next Story

Paradise PC gaming-workstation desk relaunches successfully on Kickstarter

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Cool, maybe Apple should include a whole OS X desktop with a future version of iTunes for Metro. Of course you can't actually click on anything except the iTunes Dock icon and Menu Bar.

Everyone is writing about the new Chrome Feature, but not a single one knows how to enable it on the DEV channel, which bring us to the following point: does it really exists?

Someone created an article about it, it was never mentioned anywhere at Google, and NeoWin and Engadget repeated it and posted some chrome os screenshot

Comments here are funny. More anti this and anti that. Dont want this on Win8? Then dont use it. Just like I wont be using it. End of discussion.

techbeck said,
Comments here are funny. More anti this and anti that. Dont want this on Win8? Then dont use it. Just like I wont be using it. End of discussion.

Discussions on a discussion forum, who would have thought of that? It's a crazy world out there!

Nobody forces you to install this on your beloved Metro box, tainting it.
Before moaning about the "ad platform" that Google is, please keep in mind that (1) nobody forces you to install anything Google and (2) Google offers most of its software & services (unlike Microsoft, the company you love so much) for free, so it has to get to monetize somehow...

PS: Chrome has absolutely zero ads. Just like Firefox, IE etc...

Edited by xendrome, Oct 6 2013, 11:57pm :

Chrome has been, and can be hijacked like every other browser. I've seen ads been put on Google's FrontPage because of a third-party application.

Vinylchan said,
Chrome has been, and can be hijacked like every other browser. I've seen ads been put on Google's FrontPage because of a third-party application.

Hijacking the browser is another thing.... doesn't mean Google bundles the browser with ads.

Mortis said,
All you guys and Microsoft ass kissers moaning here please get a life.

Nobody forces you to install this on your beloved Metro box, tainting it.
Before moaning about the "ad platform" that Google is, please keep in mind that (1) nobody forces you to install anything Google and (2) Google offers most of its software & services (unlike Microsoft, the company you love so much) for free, so it has to get to monetize somehow...

PS: Chrome has absolutely zero ads. Just like Firefox, IE etc...

Agree 99%.

I don't install Google crap outside of a test system and I don't have any reason to do so. If Microsoft doesn't want this in the Store, they will remove it.


The 'PS' is the only partially incorrect item. Chrome doesn't have Ads, but the browser allows for ad tracking (even with blockers installed) that Firefox and IE do not.

Chrome only exists because IE7's cross site and tracking protection were seen as a threat to Google, especially with Firefox moving to implement some of the same features; which killed Google's support of Firefox funding.

They should put more time into making Chrome on Metro smoother and better. Chrome OS is a waste of time. Its so fail they have to turn it into a trojan horse.

This is part of Google's diabolical plan to have one platform everywhere, ChromeOS. Like Microsoft, they want a single app platform. All their help pages right now say "use Windows 8 desktop mode to use your favorite Chrome apps".

Within the next 5 years, Android will be replaced with the Chrome Phone. Your apps will work on Windows, OS X, Linux, and your Chrome Phone. I think they can beat Microsoft's plans to unify.

In anycase, Chrome is awkward to use in this mode. They need to streamline their interface, and allow each individual Chrome App to run as their own metro tile.

Indeed, ChromeOS will replace Android. Android boss stepped down, the Chrome head now leads the Android platform.

Look at I/O this year. It makes sense for them to use this platform, of which they control. They need not ever worry about Dalvik again!

Hugo Barra was an Android team lead, not an Android "boss".

Sundar Pichai was always head of Android and Chrome.

Google already stated ChromeOS would not replace Android.

ObiWanToby said,
Indeed, ChromeOS will replace Android. Android boss stepped down, the Chrome head now leads the Android platform.

Look at I/O this year. It makes sense for them to use this platform, of which they control. They need not ever worry about Dalvik again!


Do you even know why Andy Rubin stepped down? Sundar Pichai was a great candidate to fill this roll. I mean just look at the Chromecast. Also, you have no idea what you are talking about. Chrome is not replacing Android.

Apple has OSX and iOS. That's two operating systems. OMG is iOS replacing OSX? How come nobody ever says that?

Microsoft has Windows NT, Windows Phone and Windows Embedded OMG that's ONE company but THREE Operating Systems. Which one is gonna rule them all.

All of a sudden Google which has had Android for a few years adds Chrome OS and everyone and their mother thinks that Chrome is going to replacing Android because "EVERYBODY thinks that only ONE company can only have ONE operating system to work with. "

Please amateurs, save your "expert" opinions to your dumb friends or family members who don't know any better. Over here I'm calling out your BS.

DarkNet said,
Apple has OSX and iOS. That's two operating systems. OMG is iOS replacing OSX? How come nobody ever says that?

Plenty of people, all over the internet including here on Neowin, have said exactly that. So right now I'm calling out your BS.

.Neo said,

Plenty of people, all over the internet including here on Neowin, have said exactly that. So right now I'm calling out your BS.

Really? What BS Prove it. How about Microsoft's? Ahh, I see, you have nothing to say on that matter. Please be quiet if you can't even show how this is BS.

All you are saying some people who know nothing about what Apple is doing is replacing OSX with iOS.

Remind me again when was the last time the released a new version OSX and iOS? Oh you mean 2013.

If google does not develop this in HTML5, MS just blocks it like they did to youtube app ..................

If and whenever Google perfected this and it runs, it will only benefit Google. It could also bring non-chrome book users to chrome book. Google does have a lot of work for this to happen, but this is what they are willing to do to bring more users to their products.

Wrong. You are not even keeping up with the times.

How much money does Google make off Chromebooks sold?
How much money does Google charge for Chrome OS?

If you answered 0 for those two questions, then why would they care if you are going to use a Chromebook?

Now let's take a look at the bigger picture here. We know that Google is working to bring Offline Apps to Chrome and Chrome OS. Hmm, where will we get such apps? Perhaps the webstore?

Essentially you are living on the web right now. Look at what most people do with their computers. They are on the web. Does the OS really matter? What if there is a way to go even further with this? You see what they are designing here is away to bypass ANY OS and bringing a Universal Store. So apps that you'll one day buy for Chromebooks, will work on Windows and OSX. Genius really.

DarkNet said,
Wrong. You are not even keeping up with the times.

How much money does Google make off Chromebooks sold?
How much money does Google charge for Chrome OS?

If you answered 0 for those two questions, then why would they care if you are going to use a Chromebook?

Now let's take a look at the bigger picture here. We know that Google is working to bring Offline Apps to Chrome and Chrome OS. Hmm, where will we get such apps? Perhaps the webstore?

Essentially you are living on the web right now. Look at what most people do with their computers. They are on the web. Does the OS really matter? What if there is a way to go even further with this? You see what they are designing here is away to bypass ANY OS and bringing a Universal Store. So apps that you'll one day buy for Chromebooks, will work on Windows and OSX. Genius really.

DarkNet, would you like to read what I wrote once again. What you said is basically what I said. In fact, you are contradicting what you are saying. Pretty funny actually. LOL

DarkNet said,
Wrong. You are not even keeping up with the times.

How much money does Google make off Chromebooks sold?
How much money does Google charge for Chrome OS?

If you answered 0 for those two questions, then why would they care if you are going to use a Chromebook?

Now let's take a look at the bigger picture here. We know that Google is working to bring Offline Apps to Chrome and Chrome OS. Hmm, where will we get such apps? Perhaps the webstore?

Essentially you are living on the web right now. Look at what most people do with their computers. They are on the web. Does the OS really matter? What if there is a way to go even further with this? You see what they are designing here is away to bypass ANY OS and bringing a Universal Store. So apps that you'll one day buy for Chromebooks, will work on Windows and OSX. Genius really.

Oh another thing you forgot to think about, If users realizes that they don't need to purchase a full pledge PC just to do their favorite apps, don't you think that would drive people to purchase Chrombooks? You see DarkNet,, if you are looking at the bigger picture, then you would know in the real world, it is not all about the tech, there are business reasons, risks, and decisions, and they know that they can capitalize it on Microsoft expense. It is common sense actually, use Windows as a leverage to get people to notice this particular product - just like how Google is capitalizing with Ads from Windows users. Now will this become popular? Time will tell, thus as said, if and when Google perfected this ...

As more money that Chromebooks and Chrome OS ...don't you think that this could be the reason why they are doing this. Please use some common sense. It is not about keeping up with the times, it is how to generate revenues from Chromebooks / Chrome OS.

I don't think you know the meaning of contradict. Please explain?

The future of Chrome OS is not in Chromebooks, it's in offline apps in Chrome. The average person won't buy a Chromebook (especially as their primary PC). If it isn't a Windows or a Mac, they won't touch it. Please use common sense here. Chrome OS is not a full OS as Windows and Mac are.

Microsoft is blurring the lines with Windows 8 and Windows RT. Your average consumer does not know the difference between the two. They see Windows and think Windows RT is just fine. Google is finding away to bring their ecosystem into other platforms. Not there hardware platform. Google doesn't care about selling hardware to your average consumer. Once you are in with their software, you are just as valuable as you if you had a Chromebook.

You are mistaken if you think this is to generate revenue for Chromebooks. This is to generate interest in Chrome as a platform.

DarkNet said,
I don't think you know the meaning of contradict. Please explain?

The future of Chrome OS is not in Chromebooks, it's in offline apps in Chrome. The average person won't buy a Chromebook (especially as their primary PC). If it isn't a Windows or a Mac, they won't touch it. Please use common sense here. Chrome OS is not a full OS as Windows and Mac are.

Microsoft is blurring the lines with Windows 8 and Windows RT. Your average consumer does not know the difference between the two. They see Windows and think Windows RT is just fine. Google is finding away to bring their ecosystem into other platforms. Not there hardware platform. Google doesn't care about selling hardware to your average consumer. Once you are in with their software, you are just as valuable as you if you had a Chromebook.

You are mistaken if you think this is to generate revenue for Chromebooks. This is to generate interest in Chrome as a platform.

Wow, you seem to be really lacking common sense. Get your head out of the technical aspect first. Do you really think a company will make a decision to go into a particular segment of the market for it not to create revenues? Hmmmm ...the last time I looked, when you start a business, or enter a part of the market, you are in to make revenues.

Another one that is lacking from your logic. The more Google can get their product out there, the better for them. Why, because it generates revenue for their service, and Ads, which is their bread and butter.

Oh by the way, what OS is Chromebook is running? Oh, that is right, Chrome OS. As I said previously, if Google perfected this - including that offline feature that you've talking about, guess what, it could generate interest with the consumers. And by the way, you maybe right (or wrong) about how consumers might not know the difference, but they sure know the difference on price, especially the ones that might find offline feature attractive. And do you really think that anyone here or consumers will purchase a pricey system just to install Chrome OS?

You know what, you and I agreeing Google is doing this, so that people will get to know Chrome OS. You stop your thinking there. However, for me, I am looking more further than that - they want to undercut MS since tablet has undercut the PC market, and they're hoping that they can do the same - on Microsoft expense. Genius really.

RommelS said,
Wow, you seem to be really lacking common sense. Get your head out of the technical aspect first. Do you really think a company will make a decision to go into a particular segment of the market for it not to create revenues? Hmmmm ...the last time I looked, when you start a business, or enter a part of the market, you are in to make revenues.

What is Google's Revenue again? It's not from hardware.

RommelS said,
Another one that is lacking from your logic. The more Google can get their product out there, the better for them. Why, because it generates revenue for their service, and Ads, which is their bread and butter.

So you agree their bread and butter is not from hardware. They don't care how users get to them as long as they are there. Very simple, yet you can't grasp that.

RommelS said,
Oh by the way, what OS is Chromebook is running? Oh, that is right, Chrome OS. As I said previously, if Google perfected this - including that offline feature that you've talking about, guess what, it could generate interest with the consumers. And by the way, you maybe right (or wrong) about how consumers might not know the difference, but they sure know the difference on price, especially the ones that might find offline feature attractive. And do you really think that anyone here or consumers will purchase a pricey system just to install Chrome OS?

Typical consumers know nothing. So-called tech experts spread misinformation. Typical sales person knows nothing than what they are told. So a typical consumer walks in to a store to buy a laptop. They are told this Windows machine can do X and Chromebook can't do it. Yes, your argument is justified if you are comparing Windows 8 RT to Chromebook. But Windows 8 (which has the "Metro" App Store as well) can do so much more than a Chromebook.

RommelS said,
You know what, you and I agreeing Google is doing this, so that people will get to know Chrome OS. You stop your thinking there. However, for me, I am looking more further than that - they want to undercut MS since tablet has undercut the PC market, and they're hoping that they can do the same - on Microsoft expense. Genius really.

I never said that this will get people to know Chrome OS. As far as people will be concerned, they are running Chrome browser. They just happen to get some cool apps inside the Google ecosystem.

That's the real genius of it.

DarkNet said,

So you agree their bread and butter is not from hardware. They don't care how users get to them as long as they are there. Very simple, yet you can't grasp that..

They don't care how users get to them ....Hmmm, sounds like what I've been saying all along.

I think this is where we are getting off, you stated that Google is not making money from hardware, but I see it as part of Google making money from it. I never said in this whole conversation that they will make money from hardware, I stated that more their product is out there, the better it is for them.

However, they are doing this to introduce the product within Windows. And they have to do that because major OEMs are backing them with their Chromebook - HP, ASUS, and Acer. If people doesn't get used to it, it could possibly the end of their OS. And to be honest, Chrome OS on Chromebook is pretty darn nice, but you will be depended with Google.

And where is the best place to get it and hopefully consumers will lean it, and at the same time get revenues from it - that's right, Windows because it is still everywhere even with the decline of PC ...and that, is the real genius of it.

You do realize what you are describing is secondary. Their end game is to get you into their ecosystem. To get you in so that they can data mine you. What you do afterwards is secondary (i.e. continue to use Chrome in Windows or buy a Chromebook).

Chrome OS will not die. The best way they can ensure its survival is really quite simple. You know how some PCs have a fastboot to web option that loads in less than 5 seconds? Well the manufacturers are using a customized Linux OS to do this. Why not replace that with Chrome OS?

They can strike a deal with HP, Samsung, Acer, Toashiba and Lenova to do this.

People may think that Chrome OS is going to die but they don't realize that Schools are buying these things. I use one myself (Samsung Chromebook). But it will never replace Windows. I need programs such as Autodesk Civil 3D and ArcGIS. But Chromebook to me is a secondary device. Nothing can remove me completely from Windows.

DarkNet said,
You do realize what you are describing is secondary. Their end game is to get you into their ecosystem. To get you in so that they can data mine you. What you do afterwards is secondary (i.e. continue to use Chrome in Windows or buy a Chromebook).

Chrome OS will not die. The best way they can ensure its survival is really quite simple. You know how some PCs have a fastboot to web option that loads in less than 5 seconds? Well the manufacturers are using a customized Linux OS to do this. Why not replace that with Chrome OS?

They can strike a deal with HP, Samsung, Acer, Toashiba and Lenova to do this.

People may think that Chrome OS is going to die but they don't realize that Schools are buying these things. I use one myself (Samsung Chromebook). But it will never replace Windows. I need programs such as Autodesk Civil 3D and ArcGIS. But Chromebook to me is a secondary device. Nothing can remove me completely from Windows.

You do realized that secondary thing that you are talking about is what they are trying to accomplished in the long run, right? They already have consumers hooked to their products and services, but Chromebook is not really flying off the shelves other than educational purposes only - yes, I am well aware of that as well.

Another thing, you really cannot call that secondary because, as you say, if they want to strike deals with OEMs (which they already have as I stated), they need this to become more popular. Replicating the experience on a full screen modern app is another way exposing the product. This is actually a two fold for Google; let's take MS out of the equation from their own OS and earn revenues, and get people familiar with Chrome OS with the hope that it will lead to the purchase of Chromebooks.

I will agree with you that at the moment and years to come, that all of these devices cannot completely remove Windows, but since these tech companies are bringing us to the cloud, including MS, you have to keep an eye on it because a Chromebook might just become one of the best and cheapest investment you might have purchase ...in the future. Autodesk is on the cloud now you know.

It is secondary because even Google themselves work on Macs. You can not code for Android on a Chromebook.

Living in NYC and having a lot of friends who work at Google, they themselves think Chromebook is a secondary product. At best it is a good Netbook replacement but can never replace the power of Windows and OSX.

It doesn't become secondary if there were plans to make it a powerful platform. Right now, there plans only include making it an offline platform. Nothing really with CAD. Nothing really with advanced photo or audio editing. Nothing with Advanced GIS. Nothing with advanced coding. At best you can use a Chromebook to access your Windows or Mac. But that's not eliminating it.

The primary function right now is to get users on Google. Not get users on Chromebook.

Until there is evidence of Chromebook being used on more powerful projects (which you still don't even see it with the Pixel), Chromebook adoption is secondary when it comes to what they are trying to accomplish with offline apps. Their primary objective is to get Chrome OS on your hardware. You see the difference? Here lies the confusion in this discussion.

Ok, don't get this wrong, but where in my conversation with you that I said that Google must need users to transition to Chromebooks right away? Can you please tell me. I said it is a long term business decision. Another thing, in my original post,

It could also bring non-chrome book users to chrome book.

Did I mention any time frame when I said that? I was generalizing, however, you have to try and correct me, thus you and I are having this lively conversation because you think your little comment will not bring you to this.

Here, I will quote myself once again, so maybe it can help you jog your memory:


Replicating the experience on a full screen modern app is another way exposing the product. This is actually a two fold for Google; let's take MS out of the equation from their own OS and earn revenues, and get people familiar with Chrome OS with the hope that it will lead to the purchase of Chromebooks.

... "with the hope", can I get any clearer than that? There's no time frame mentioned in that sentence, let alone that this product is not even out yet.

Your friends at Google might think that is a secondary product because right now, it is not selling all that well, but it is still part of their long term strategies. In addition, you don't call a product a secondary product if you have OEM backings from HP, ASUS and Acer, and considering that HP's relationship with HP is intensifying. How careless of your friends to say that to an OEM partner that their product is only second fiddle.

DarkNet said,
The primary function right now is to get users on Google. Not get users on Chromebook.
Seriously, do you know how weird that sound? In a business sense, Google wants Chromebook to have traction in reality. Again, the more product is out there for them, the better it is for them.

DarkNet said,
Until there is evidence of Chromebook being used on more powerful projects (which you still don't even see it with the Pixel), Chromebook adoption is secondary when it comes to what they are trying to accomplish with offline apps. Their primary objective is to get Chrome OS on your hardware. You see the difference? Here lies the confusion in this discussion.

I will repeat myself once again, and I quote:


Replicating the experience on a full screen modern app is another way exposing the product. This is actually a two fold for Google; let's take MS out of the equation from their own OS and earn revenues, and get people familiar with Chrome OS with the hope that it will lead to the purchase of Chromebooks.

You don't need evidence of that because all the computing power will be done on the cloud and not on any online device. The online device - like Chromebook, is only your interface and gateway to the Internet and apps. That is where these tech giants is trying to bring us.

Even MS wants more application out there in the cloud. In fact, Hedge Fund ValueAct has invested 2 billion on MS because of their cloud computing, and it is close of getting a seat on the board.

The confusion here is that you keep referring to a time frame - that people must go use Chromebook RIGHT AWAY - while I stated that it is a long term goal of a business decision.

I see, you are one of those guys that has to be right. Blocking you from future discussion. The confusion here is I am talking to you.

DarkNet said,
I see, you are one of those guys that has to be right. Blocking you from future discussion. The confusion here is I am talking to you.

Is that suppose to scare me. LOL

The difference here, is that I am man enough to stick with my guns and armed myself with common sense and business knowledge, and when I am wrong, I will concede, and not tell anyone that "Oh I will block you from future discussion."

Why does Google have to be so petty and why are they even wasting their time with this? If they don't want to support Windows 8, then don't even bother making any kind of Metro interface. I just don't see the point. If Chrome is my browser of choice and I have a Windows 8 tablet, I most assuredly would not bother with Chrome. It isn't made for the environment.
I would like an alternative to IE in Metro, but apparently Google doesn't think it is worth trying. I guess just all the better for Firefox then.

What sucks is that only web browser developers can get away with this. Anyone else has to abide by the UGLY standards that MS has defined for Metro if they want to be in the app store.

Metro is effing disgusting -- it is HIDEOUS to look at.

Enron said,
What are you talking about? The image used in the article is not Metro.

And what are YOU talking about. I don't care what the picture in the article is of. It could be of a baboon playing with himself. I am pointing out the fact that Google is changing their Metro version of Chrome into something that isn't as hideous. Reading comprehension for the win!

runningnak3d said,

And what are YOU talking about. I don't care what the picture in the article is of. It could be of a baboon playing with himself. I am pointing out the fact that Google is changing their Metro version of Chrome into something that isn't as hideous. Reading comprehension for the win!

It's not a matter of reading comprehension, it's more a matter of comprehending your outrageous claim that Metro is hideous. If it was really so hideous, everyone wouldn't be copying it right now.

Enron said,

It's not a matter of reading comprehension, it's more a matter of comprehending your outrageous claim that Metro is hideous. If it was really so hideous, everyone wouldn't be copying it right now.

Apple's implementation is effing hideous, I don't bitch about Google, because at least with Android I can replace their flattened 4bit color crap.

Actually...this is kinda interesting. Yes this circumvents everything that Metro is supposed to be, but...no one said that apps can't have windows in them! Windows 8 is supposed to be like this - to be a showcase for apps without the OS's chrome getting in the way.

What a paradox. Still wish that chrome would stick to being a browser instead of all this App Crap.

Enron said,
Just another reason I wouldn't want to install any Google "software" on my PC.

Why've you quoted the word "software"? lol As if that definition is someone in dispute?

Congrats on the proper title, because The Verge's 1: Isn't accurate and 2: Is written poorly

Google is building Chrome OS straight into Windows 8

When Google started blaming Microsoft for not releasing APIs where IE had access to back in the Windows Developer Preview days, and Microsoft released those APIs, I'm pretty sure, this is not what they had in mind...

if MS somehow blocked chrome, they'd have a riot on their hands. No one wants to willingly use IE if you are educated about a premium browser experience, one which IE definitely isn't.

This doesn't install via the app store. Its like saying MS should reject Stardock apps that alter Metro. I suppose they could release Windows updates every month that breaks functionality though as Apple did to fight Palm from using iTunes syncing.

- Kaboose - said,
if MS somehow blocked chrome, they'd have a riot on their hands. No one wants to willingly use IE if you are educated about a premium browser experience, one which IE definitely isn't.

I think you're out of date with that assessment. IE11, and IE10 to a lesser extent are great browsers... besides, we're talking about blocking chrome in metro, not blocking chrome altogether. IE is the only true metro based browser and provides the best touch experience on Windows.

TCLN Ryster said,

I think you're out of date with that assessment. IE11, and IE10 to a lesser extent are great browsers... besides, we're talking about blocking chrome in metro, not blocking chrome altogether. IE is the only true metro based browser and provides the best touch experience on Windows.

Firefox Nightly is also a true Metro browser.

And neither Firefox Nightly (or Aurora, which is also a true ModernUI browser - in fact, it's my default in Windows 8.1 at the moment) exhibits such silly behavior.

ians18 said,
I think Microsoft should allow other browsers to run in the modern UI and be downloaded from the store.

I wasn't aware Microsoft blocked web browsers in the store?

seta-san said,
microsoft should make rules about application appearance standards.. then block chrome for not meeting them.

Microsoft can't do anything, because these Web browsers are not Windows Store apps. They are desktop apps with special privileges to use the WinRT environment.

seta-san said,
microsoft should make rules about application appearance standards.. then block chrome for not meeting them.

Beggars can't be choosers.

TCLN Ryster said,

I wasn't aware Microsoft blocked web browsers in the store?

They don't block them, but there is some story to why Firefox, Opera, and Chrome haven't announced development for versions distributed through the store. Can someone explain?

ians18 said,

They don't block them, but there is some story to why Firefox, Opera, and Chrome haven't announced development for versions distributed through the store. Can someone explain?

They're too lazy to develop a new browser from scratch using WinRT?

TCLN Ryster said,

They're too lazy to develop a new browser from scratch using WinRT?

Because building a web browser from scratch is like running a web browser with web browser APIs. Brilliantly fast!

It's unusable at the moment for those on high DPI displays. Still, it's a very odd move. This is their way of furthering their proprietary Web platform.

Meph said,
their proprietary Web platform.

You mean Ad platform. They have shown no sign of being able to derive significant revenue from anything but ads. That Chrome is a web browser is incidental.

waded said,
You mean Ad platform. They have shown no sign of being able to derive significant revenue from anything but ads. That Chrome is a web browser is incidental.

I wasn't referring to their ads, but that too.

Microsoft needs to block this because it a complete abuse of APIs. This works because Microsoft opened up new APIs that allows desktop browsers to run in full screen mode and interact with the modern side of the OS that other desktop apps don't have access to . By making this, Google is essentially using APIs that is reserved for only browsers to virtualise their desktop OS which is a complete abuse of the OS.

Naturally I wouldn't have cared but this is Google going out of their way to give Windows 8 users a bad user experience . Chrome is a big memory hog and I suppose this is going to get even worse, neither does it properly support touch or high resolution displays on windows .

Why? How's this any different to a desktop application running in full screen and providing stuff that works just the same? If it sits on top of the Windows taskbar, then it's working somewhat similarly to any other Metro app.

Look, I'm not a fan of google at all, but you're getting a bit carried away mate. Metro/non-metro, there's nothing stopping them changing desktop chrome into this nonsense and forcing it on users. You tap the tile on the Start screen and it launches this. The only difference is, you'll see a short glimpse of your Windows desktop before this starts.

Ideas Man said,
Why? How's this any different to a desktop application running in full screen and providing stuff that works just the same? If it sits on top of the Windows taskbar, then it's working somewhat similarly to any other Metro app.

Look, I'm not a fan of google at all, but you're getting a bit carried away mate. Metro/non-metro, there's nothing stopping them changing desktop chrome into this nonsense and forcing it on users. You tap the tile on the Start screen and it launches this. The only difference is, you'll see a short glimpse of your Windows desktop before this starts.


The difference is Google is making use of special Windows 8.1 APIs that allows desktop browsers to act as metro apps without actually being a metro app. The problem is this API is reserved for only browsers but this is not strictly a browser.

If they made it a desktop app without access to those APIs it would have been a desktop app without access to the metro side of windows.

Replacing a very good touch UI (Metro) with a very poor imitation of Windows desktop (ChromeOS) that doesn't work at all well with touch, and can't do 1% of the things Windows desktop can already do... How completely pointless and ridiculous.

NoClipMode said,
Replacing a very good touch UI (Metro) with a very poor imitation of Windows desktop (ChromeOS) that doesn't work at all well with touch, and can't do 1% of the things Windows desktop can already do... How completely pointless and ridiculous.

Given the fact that Metro Chrome was just a full screen version of regular Chrome, this just makes that more usable.

SharpGreen said,

Given the fact that Metro Chrome was just a full screen version of regular Chrome, this just makes that more usable.

How? The whole point of anything Metro based is for it to work well with touch input. ChromeOS doesn't work well with touch because it's made to look like the Windows desktop. The UI wasn't originally designed for touch input so you end up with a poor experience. Try using a Chromebook with a touch screen, it's not nice.

The Metro IE/Firefox browsers are good examples of how a Metro browser should be.

Vinylchan said,
As a Touch UI, it's good.

1) Microsoft, and its many fans, has repeatedly pointed out that Metro isn't only for touch.
2) That still doesn't make Metro "very good" as a touch UI.

Vinylchan said,
As a Touch UI, it's good.

That's the context

This thing is a lot, but good for Touch use? No, did you even try this thing on a touch screen? The buttons are way to small.

theyarecomingforyou said,

1) Microsoft, and its many fans, has repeatedly pointed out that Metro isn't only for touch.
2) That still doesn't make Metro "very good" as a touch UI.

1. Has nothing to do with that it's very good for touch. Why bring it up?

2. In my opinion metro/modern UI is a very good touch UI. It's fluit with great gestures that make it incredibly easy to navigate. It seems that the entire experience is build with touch in mind. After using metro it feels like a step back when you're on android of iOS with their icongrids that feel like something that was ported over from the pre-touch era.

Studio384 said,
This thing is a lot, but good for Touch use? No, did you even try this thing on a touch screen? The buttons are way to small.
He doesn't mean Chrome is great for touch, he means Metro is good for touch, much better than Chrome is.

theyarecomingforyou said,

1) Microsoft, and its many fans, has repeatedly pointed out that Metro isn't only for touch.
2) That still doesn't make Metro "very good" as a touch UI.

No we have pointed out to all the isheep and androids that Windows 8 and Windows RT is a cleaner, more modern, and touch friendly interface that absolutely is great with a keyboard, mouse, stylus, trackpoint, trackpad, trackball, etc.

Why is it not a good UI? Be specific.

SharpGreen said,

Given the fact that Metro Chrome was just a full screen version of regular Chrome, this just makes that more usable.

Why not optimize chrome to have a button to switch between sets of tabs instead of use the desktop method?

ians18 said,

No we have pointed out to all the isheep and androids that Windows 8 and Windows RT is a cleaner, more modern, and touch friendly interface that absolutely is great with a keyboard, mouse, stylus, trackpoint, trackpad, trackball, etc.

Why is it not a good UI? Be specific.

While I cannot care less about this endless debate about Touch/Not Touch I have noted that, at the moment, all these Metro/Modern apps have less functionalities than previous desktop ones; a quick example: the Pictures app in W8.1, I use it but when I need to manipulate a picture I have to use the "old" Live one.
Said that I am sure that in the future things will improve, probably with a wider adoption of radial menus as n One Note.

The functionality of the modern apps have little to do with how great the UI is. If the UI limited the ability to add functionality then it would be a different case, But as it is the lack of functionality has more to do with the age of the OS.

theyarecomingforyou - the attacks on ModernUI were NOT over unsuitability for touch, but over unsuitability for desktop (and specifically keyboard and mouse) use. The hole in that theory, however, is that ModernUI, and the apps thereof, are usable with a keyboard and mouse. Now, depending on the application or usage case, there are times that a ModernUI app can replace a Win32 (desktop) version - this, at least for me, primarily happens when the typical use is full-screen (Twitter clients and some, but not all, text-reading/editing software). Still, that is very user-specific and subjective. The very fact that it IS user-specific and subjective, however, means that you can't generalize it - which is exactly what ModernUI's critics have tried to do.

Ronnet said,
The functionality of the modern apps have little to do with how great the UI is. If the UI limited the ability to add functionality then it would be a different case, But as it is the lack of functionality has more to do with the age of the OS.

Indeed, but my point was and is that until the Metro apps functionalities are added the UI, intended as a paradigm, cannot be portrayed, as it is, as superior. It has an Aristotelian potential to be superior but such stage has not been reached... yet. As a sophisms we could even argue if adding a radial menu would break the Metro/Modern paradigm but, first I am not an UI expert and second... is Sunday. :-)

NoClipMode said,
Replacing a very good touch UI (Metro) with a very poor imitation of Windows desktop (ChromeOS) that doesn't work at all well with touch, and can't do 1% of the things Windows desktop can already do... How completely pointless and ridiculous.

I'm glad somebody here can acknowledge that Windows 8 is designed for Touch based computers while ignoring the majority of other users who don't have touch monitors. I guess that explains why the majority of companies are still on Windows 7 then.

Also, very good? LOL. If anything other companies have them beat on that too.

Its google fightling windows from inside. they put lowest effort in design and refining as they could. oh well, I can live without google. don't want to see crap on my windows 8 machine

Fritzly said,

Indeed, but my point was and is that until the Metro apps functionalities are added the UI, intended as a paradigm, cannot be portrayed, as it is, as superior. It has an Aristotelian potential to be superior but such stage has not been reached... yet. As a sophisms we could even argue if adding a radial menu would break the Metro/Modern paradigm but, first I am not an UI expert and second... is Sunday. :-)

I don't think people were discussing whether or not its superior. That would indicate its better then something else. I think people were discussing whether or not it's a good touch UI, on its own. I think it's a good touch UI even if the apps aren't quite there yet. It doesn't take away from the fact that it's very easy and fun to navigate.

Is Windows 8 as a whole as good as say iOS? That depends what you're looking for. If you're in it for the apps then no I guess not. But for my needs it isn't just as good, its much better.