Microsoft talks about having two user interfaces for Windows 8

Microsoft continues to update its official Windows 8 developer blog with new entries about its upcoming next version of its Windows operating system. Today's newest blog entry takes a closer look at Windows 8's user interface, or rather its two user interfaces. The most talked about part of the new UI is called "Metro" which is the highly graphical design that is pictured above and is made to be used primarily for touch screens devices. Microsoft also has the more traditional PC-based user interface that will be more familiar to previous Windows users when they check out their files and folders.

But why have both kinds for this one operating system? According to Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky, "Having both of user interfaces together harmoniously is an important part of Windows 8." One of the reasons for having two kinds of UI is the success of Windows 7. Sinofsky says, "Hundreds of millions of people rely on the Windows 7 UI and existing Windows apps and devices every day, and would value (and expect) us to bring forward aspects of that experience to their next PCs."

While there is an argument to be made to start completely over and launch Windows 8 with just the graphical Metro UI, Microsoft decided against that. Sinofsky says, "We chose to take the approach of building a design without compromise. A design that truly affords you the best of the two worlds we see today. Our perspective rests on the foundation of the open PC architecture that has proven flexible and adaptable over many significant changes in hardware capabilities and software paradigms.  This is the flexibility that has served as a cornerstone through transitions in user interface, connectivity, programming models, and hardware capabilities (to name a few)."

He adds, "If you want to, you can seamlessly switch between Metro style apps and the improved Windows desktop. Existing apps, devices, and tools all remain and are improved in Windows 8. On the other hand, if you prefer to immerse yourself in only Metro style apps (and platform) and the new user experience, you can do that as well!"

More information on Windows 8 is expected to be revealed at Microsoft BUILD Conference in Anaheim, California in mid-September.

Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft works with PEGI to take age rating system mobile

Next Story

Rumor: Facebook to launch music service in September

84 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"We chose to take the approach of building a design without compromise. A design that truly affords you the best of the two worlds we see today."

Isn't that essentially the ultimate compromise: building two entirely different user interfaces for what will ultimately do the same things?

While I understand the reasoning (the tablet UI would be rubbish for non-tablet stuff) I do feel that having two so vastly different UIs will mean a product that doesn't know whether it's a bird or a fish. The user will most likely have to change between the two based on programs they use and the end result will look like a mess. I really hope they theme the Metro UI to more closely match the old Windows UI so they will fit together better.

I do really hope they can get developers on board. We've suffered too long with the idiotic and ****ty UIs that date back to Win9x. I wish MS would drop legacy support and simply offer that in an XP mode for those that need it and require fully Win7 native apps otherwise, especially in the upcoming app store.

They always planned on having both interfaces. I don't quite understand why they were misleading people into thinking there was only going to be the Metro style UI, I mean it would be everyone having to go back to Windows 3.1
The Metro UI is more for tablets and small devices where the hardware isn't going to need all the eye candy and features of a full interface so it only makes sense to have both.

The new UI is great for lots of scenarios like tablets, notebooks, or even some desktops. I will love it on my eee slate, where I set everything to maximize by default anyhow, and wish all the buttons were three times bigger. Plus, all that graphics horsepower can more smoothly do things like scale a webpage in continuous increments. My mom will also love it because it's a lot simpler.

The new UI with full screen/tiled window motif does NOT work for those of us that rely on large, high-resolution monitors, or that have multiple large monitors. If I have even one 27" or 30" monitor, the last thing I want is a web browser or word processor to take up the entire screen, half a screen, or even the entire screen height. I do not want gigantic text, nor do I want tons of whitespace -- I want... you know, adjustable windows

And by the way, adjustable windows is great for mouse, and horrible for finger.

So yes, 1 OS, 2 UI is perfect -- technically THREE UIs, the third being the minimalist, low resource, RDP friendly Windows NT skin.

Talys said,

So yes, 1 OS, 2 UI is perfect -- technically THREE UIs, the third being the minimalist, low resource, RDP friendly Windows NT skin.

Three UI's, yes, that will be great, If three UI's is the right way to go then maybe 4 or 5 UI's will be even better?

Sounds like a mess to me. At least hope it is possible to use Metro UI exclusively, without having to switch to the regular desktop. Otherwise I'll just stick with Windows 7 and see what Windows 9 brings. See no point in paying a fortune for what eventually amounts to a glorified start menu (which is the impression they are starting to give me).

If they are going to make a new UI they need to stick with it. Microsoft's biggest problem since as far back as I can remember has been consistency!

Fourjays said,
Sounds like a mess to me. At least hope it is possible to use Metro UI exclusively, without having to switch to the regular desktop. Otherwise I'll just stick with Windows 7 and see what Windows 9 brings. See no point in paying a fortune for what eventually amounts to a glorified start menu (which is the impression they are starting to give me).

If they are going to make a new UI they need to stick with it. Microsoft's biggest problem since as far back as I can remember has been consistency!


How can it be a glorified Start Menu when it actually runs apps (the Immersive ones)?. That's just like saying the old Desktop mode is a glorified Start Menu. The Immersive experience is a whole new Windows; it is nothing like a Start Menu.

Did anyone actually expect only the Metro interface? Even after MS showed it will be switchable this summer?

Nice that they explained their reasoning though, although this isn't really news.

x-byte said,
Did anyone actually expect only the Metro interface? Even after MS showed it will be switchable this summer?

Nice that they explained their reasoning though, although this isn't really news.

No, it's just his elaboration, to what he had already said at D9.

ThePitt said,
thats nice but no thanks... Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 stay away from me

Why? At least you can run it for Windows 7 free!

The blog post doesn't tell us anything new, but it's reassuring that Microsoft know what they're doing. They understand everyone's concerns, so I think they've really thought this through.

This W8 will be the rebirth of hybrid devices. I like, what Microsoft says, that this won't a compromise on either side.

FMH said,
This W8 will be the rebirth of hybrid devices. I like, what Microsoft says, that this won't a compromise on either side.

And this is exactly what we need. Tablet (smartphone OS) devices are useless 99% of the time. I picked up an HP TouchPad because it was so cheap and I haven't touched it in days. There is not a single thing it can do (that I use or know about) that my laptop or my smartphone don't do better.


My laptop is a convertible tablet (HP 2740p) and even with the sloppy touch controls, it has a pretty huge advantage: The taskbar at the bottom. One click and I switch between programs. On my TouchPad I have to click the button, slide the cards back and forth to get to the one I want, and then click it.

mrp04 said,

And this is exactly what we need. Tablet (smartphone OS) devices are useless 99% of the time. I picked up an HP TouchPad because it was so cheap and I haven't touched it in days. There is not a single thing it can do (that I use or know about) that my laptop or my smartphone don't do better.


My laptop is a convertible tablet (HP 2740p) and even with the sloppy touch controls, it has a pretty huge advantage: The taskbar at the bottom. One click and I switch between programs. On my TouchPad I have to click the button, slide the cards back and forth to get to the one I want, and then click it.

I am glad there is still someone who understand what 'Tablet", a real one as envisioned by Bill Gates in 2001, is!!!
Al these iPad and clones are useless for me; I am hanging to my old Toshiba M400 convertible until newer, more modern, devices of the same kind will appear.

What I want and need is a device that replace my laptop and a convertible does it, an iPad does not.

"Having both of user interfaces together harmoniously is an important part of Windows 8" - why for gods sake they cant talk like normal people, but continuously use marketing bs...

insanelyapple said,
"Having both of user interfaces together harmoniously is an important part of Windows 8" - why for gods sake they cant talk like normal people, but continuously use marketing bs...

It's not "marketing bs", it's called speaking professionally. You'd rather they talk like a 10 year old?

funkydude said,

It's not "marketing bs", it's called speaking professionally. You'd rather they talk like a 10 year old?

This whole English lark - It confuses some people.

Nice. I like what they're showing so far. I just hope that you have the option to boot to the desktop and don't always have to go through Metro. It would make office work and those that use the UI more for PC's than tablets a lot easier...

Also, there is that matter of the user base - and especially that in enterprises.

The very reason that Windows 2000 Professional was a smash success in enterprises (while Windows XP initially wasn't) was that it didn't ram a huge change in how users did things down their throats. If you were used to Windows 9x, you could adopt a 9x paradigm - if you preferred NT (especially NT4WS, which was what most enterprises migrated from) you could run that way. At one point I was running Windows 2000 Profesional both at home *and* at work; however, by and large, when running applications, I didn't tackle the two environments the same way. Printing, in fact, was a prime example - at work, there were different printers, with differing capabilities, in different locations; therefore I had a custom Printers page, with all the printers I had access to sorted by speed, then location, then capabilities. (Naturally, at home, I had just a single printer - therefore, no need to get creative.) Windows 2000, unlike NT4WS, supported sorting-by-queue-length for printers, which let me use another neat trick that NT4WS lacked - drag-and-drop printing - to send a priority print job to a specific printer. (Customizable routing for print jobs was possible in NT4, but much harder to do, and thus more aggravating.) However, all that additional capability could be eased into - you could still do things the way you were used to. Home users may be more disposed toward rapid changes - however, enterprises, by and large, are not.

PGHammer said,
Also, there is that matter of the user base - and especially that in enterprises.

The very reason that Windows 2000 Professional was a smash success in enterprises (while Windows XP initially wasn't) was that it didn't ram a huge change in how users did things down their throats.


WTF?
Windows 98 -> Windows 2000 was a very huge change.
Windows 2000 -> Windows XP change was small.

RealFduch said,

WTF?
Windows 98 -> Windows 2000 was a very huge change.
Windows 2000 -> Windows XP change was small.

The cores or those OSes, you are correct. The point is the way they looked and acted. Win2k was very close to 98 in look and feel. The interface to XP was vastly different, as was the moved to Vista/Win7. That's why a lot of people put them off for so long.

smooth3006 said,
if i cannot totally turn off metro and use aero i will stick to windows 7 or go osx full time.

Dude, cool down. It hasn't even reached public beta yet and you are threatening to leave Windows? Madness IMO....

I'm sure as Windows "8" progresses there will be an option to turn it off, if there isn't already one.

Just like the ribbon (small ribbon or full blown) there is an option in the Group Policy Editor.

Chill

djdanster said,

Dude, cool down. It hasn't even reached public beta yet and you are threatening to leave Windows? Madness IMO....

I'm sure as Windows "8" progresses there will be an option to turn it off, if there isn't already one.

Just like the ribbon (small ribbon or full blown) there is an option in the Group Policy Editor.

Chill

i have a good feeling we will not be able to turn it off until a hacker finds a way. not everyone likes metro including myself.

smooth3006 said,

i have a good feeling we will not be able to turn it off until a hacker finds a way. not everyone likes metro including myself.

This will be infact true. The Start Menu has been totalled and replaced with the Start Screen. But, you might turn to like it, you'll have to see.

While I do entirely agree with this decision, I kept being reminded of Microsoft's explanation about the Ribbon UI for Explorer, that it would be too much work to transition between both.

I also feel that it is logical to maintain only the Ribbon for Explorer.
The difference is that the two UIs for Explorer would be used for the exact same things- the two UIs for Windows are for quite different applications.

"Existing apps, devices, and tools all remain and are improved in Windows 8."

Means Windows Media Center still exists in some form?

djdanster said,
"Existing apps, devices, and tools all remain and are improved in Windows 8."

Means Windows Media Center still exists in some form?

Excellent question!

i always assumed they would keep both. i imagine this whole metro thing is like the sidebar gadgets except not really on the side anymore.

capr said,
i always assumed they would keep both. i imagine this whole metro thing is like the sidebar gadgets except not really on the side anymore.

No, it isn't. It's Windows reimagined. Gadgets are small, minor apps that do very little; the Immersive experience is much more complex.

Callum said,

No, it isn't. It's Windows reimagined. Gadgets are small, minor apps that do very little; the Immersive experience is much more complex.

It's the same Windows technologies as always with a new UI option.

Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

Gigi Buffon said,
Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

My problem with that is I have "My Pictures, Videos, Downloads" etc on the side of my Start Menu, I like having my things organised in Folders in an Explorer Window, I dont want to have to hugely change the way I use Windows.

Gigi Buffon said,
Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

ahahha you're funny apps wont all switch to that UI especially in the corporate world

McKay said,

My problem with that is I have "My Pictures, Videos, Downloads" etc on the side of my Start Menu, I like having my things organised in Folders in an Explorer Window, I dont want to have to hugely change the way I use Windows.

There'd be no problem with you pinning those folders to the Start Screen though, right? There may even be a way to group folders on the Start Screen; we'll have to wait until Build to find out.

It's already been demo'ed that you can press the Windows key on your keyboard to switch from the Start screen to your desktop and back. Not a big deal.

Callum said,

There'd be no problem with you pinning those folders to the Start Screen though, right? There may even be a way to group folders on the Start Screen; we'll have to wait until Build to find out.

But I like to look at them in an Explorer Window, now have them randomly listed in the Metro UI.

Gigi Buffon said,
Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

It won't be "like and App." If anything the Metro UI will be the one which is like an "App". The normal explorer shell is probably going to always be running in the back, with the Metro Shell able to be set to auto launch, with it set to automatically launch by default if a touch screen is detected

mrp04 said,

It won't be "like and App." If anything the Metro UI will be the one which is like an "App". The normal explorer shell is probably going to always be running in the back, with the Metro Shell able to be set to auto launch, with it set to automatically launch by default if a touch screen is detected

No. Sinofsky stated that the Metro UI is the shell...the old Desktop is "like an app", it doesn't run in the background at all (did you not read the post? just inquiring.)

Gigi Buffon said,
Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

Actually, that is slightly incorrect. Both will be loaded. The Start Screen will work with the old UI i.e. when you click the Start Button, the Start Screen will come up. To say that the Desktop won't be loaded is like saying that the Desktop needs to be started everytime an Application needs it, which will be inefficient. This is why they say the instance between the new and old UI will be 'Instant'.

Tony. said,

Actually, that is slightly incorrect. Both will be loaded. The Start Screen will work with the old UI i.e. when you click the Start Button, the Start Screen will come up. To say that the Desktop won't be loaded is like saying that the Desktop needs to be started everytime an Application needs it, which will be inefficient. This is why they say the instance between the new and old UI will be 'Instant'.

No, please read Sinofsky's blog post. He said the Desktop code won't be loaded unless the user explicitly wants to run it. So, it will not consume RAM, CPU power or Battery life.

McKay said,

But I like to look at them in an Explorer Window, now have them randomly listed in the Metro UI.


They wouldn't be randomly listed; you can order the tiles, and accessing each tile could be just like clicking on each link from within Windows Explorer. Microsoft might even include a Windows Explorer-like Immersive app that allows you to view favourite folders as a list. We won't know until Build. While you like to view your folders like that, I don't, and Microsoft can't please everyone.

Gigi Buffon said,

No, please read Sinofsky's blog post. He said the Desktop code won't be loaded unless the user explicitly wants to run it. So, it will not consume RAM, CPU power or Battery life.


At least one person read it... Arguing a point about an article without reading the article is just plain annoying.

Gigi Buffon said,
Bad news for Metro haters: the Start Screen will ALWAYS be there -- whether you use a laptop, desktop or tablet. The classic Desktop will be like and app, so you can "launch" the classic Desktop mode. By default the classic Desktop won't load. So, users who only want the Metro UI can choose to never open the classic desktop. But Metro haters will HAVE TO live with the Metro Start Screen.

I totally agree with this decision. Give application developers the time to move their software to Immersive UI by keeping an optional classic mode in Windows 8. By the time Windows 9 is released, hopefully the classic mode will no longer be needed.

And I'm sure the shell executable can be changed in the registry, just like how WinPE uses cmd.exe as a shell.

They should have implemented switching capability between old and new ribbon GUI in the Office 2007 at least. Would have avoided shocking a lot of non-advanced office workers.

jackkk1 said,
They should have implemented switching capability between old and new ribbon GUI in the Office 2007 at least. Would have avoided shocking a lot of non-advanced office workers.

Keeping the classic UI would have done little to urge Office addon developers to move on from toolbars. Also, as was mentioned for the Explorer article:


We've learned over many product cycles that the work to provide this significantly impacts the evolution of the product. The most immediate challenge is that any new commands added to the ribbon then need to be added in the old UI, even if there is no logical place for them. And of course as the new UI evolves, backward compatibility proves doubly challenging. Each time we change we double the number of "old" experiences we carry forward.

Denis W said,

Keeping the classic UI would have done little to urge Office addon developers to move on from toolbars. Also, as was mentioned for the Explorer article:


So, they choose developers over users.... I actually don't remember installing intentionally any addon for MS Office or any standard windows program, except ones who come as crapware integrated in a normal software installer and need to be unchecked to disable installing along with the program which you have downloaded.

jackkk1 said,

So, they choose developers over users.... I actually don't remember installing intentionally any addon for MS Office or any standard windows program, except ones who come as crapware integrated in a normal software installer and need to be unchecked to disable installing along with the program which you have downloaded.

It serves the users right for being ignorant and refusing to adapt to change. As I mentioned above, all they had to do was use their intuition. The ribbon has always been intuitive. If these people used their eyes, they would have seen a tab that says 'Review'; their intuition should tell them that tab includes the spelling and grammar checker. That's just one use case, but there is never a reasonable excuse for a user who refuses to use his or her intuition especially when it comes to software; it's just ignorant of them.

Callum said,

It serves the users right for being ignorant and refusing to adapt to change. As I mentioned above, all they had to do was use their intuition. The ribbon has always been intuitive. If these people used their eyes, they would have seen a tab that says 'Review'; their intuition should tell them that tab includes the spelling and grammar checker. That's just one use case, but there is never a reasonable excuse for a user who refuses to use his or her intuition especially when it comes to software; it's just ignorant of them.

Quit already with putting every one down. My intuition tell me there is a button on the toolbar that I use that will do spell checking and grammar. Why change it? You telling me it's easier to click on a tab, then another button, when I can just go to my toolbar. How much time and energy just the ribbon REALLY save you?

Why not let people CHOOSE how they want to compute instead of you TELLING them. Last I checked this was a free country.

There were some excellent reasons to NOT offer that choice, and some of those reasons are covered very well in the Windows Blog posting on the new ribbon interface that's being looked at for Explorer in Win8 (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/arc...ts-in-windows-explorer.aspx)

There was some discussion around offering such an alternative for Office 07. There were two very good reasons why they decided against it: first, the old interface "hid" a lot of features (75% of requests for new features were for things that were ALREADY THERE, but too hard to find). Second, offering two interfaces forks the development path. If new features are introduced, and they make sense in the new interface, how do you decide where they go in the old one?

"But they could have done it for one generation..." Yeah, maybe, but how much easier would it have really made it in the long run? Yes, sometimes a clean break is a good thing. And if you knew all your keyboard shortcuts in Office '03, they all worked in '07 anyway...

As much as the tech press wants to proclaim the death of the PC, they're still a mainstay of work in the Enterprise. The thousand employees where I work aren't going to be migrated to tablets anytime soon.

There are millions of PCs and laptops out there that still need a "traditional" interface.

Good idea, this will mean that older customers won't have to adapt rapidly and can stick to what they already know- This I know is important for a lot of consumers.

Richio said,
Good idea, this will mean that older customers won't have to adapt rapidly and can stick to what they already know- This I know is important for a lot of consumers.

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

Callum said,

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

For you, no. For my father's secretary who was a factory worker before going to business school, the change from XP to 7 was hard. In fact, she requested not to jump to Vista due to its' extreme changes, and only went to 7 because I told her it was now, or a year from now when XP is no longer supported.

Callum said,

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

It's harder for some people to change than it is for others. For tech stuff, especially something I've been so used to changes, it's hard to adapt. But at the end, it doesn't mean I can't do it, just takes time.

What actually helps me is the leaks. With Windows 7, you could see the changes taking place and slowly, one by one, you learn how to accept the OS as for what it is.

greenwizard88 said,

For you, no. For my father's secretary who was a factory worker before going to business school, the change from XP to 7 was hard. In fact, she requested not to jump to Vista due to its' extreme changes, and only went to 7 because I told her it was now, or a year from now when XP is no longer supported.

It shouldn't be hard though for anyone. It is not hard to understand how an interface works. Not being a technology enthusiast isn't a reasonable excuse. All these people have to do is use their intuition and eyes.

Tony. said,

It's harder for some people to change than it is for others. For tech stuff, especially something I've been so used to changes, it's hard to adapt. But at the end, it doesn't mean I can't do it, just takes time.

What actually helps me is the leaks. With Windows 7, you could see the changes taking place and slowly, one by one, you learn how to accept the OS as for what it is.


I honestly don't understand why it takes some people time to adapt to changes, even big changes. Every change Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc make to their products seems to be intuitive to me. I've never had a problem adapting to any new interface change in software.

Callum said,

I honestly don't understand why it takes some people time to adapt to changes, even big changes. Every change Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc make to their products seems to be intuitive to me. I've never had a problem adapting to any new interface change in software.

People that generally haven't used computers since when they were kids do have a lot more problems to adapt to a computer's way of doing things. Even if for us it seems natural.
Although I don't think that WE, better users, have to suffer because of those people... They are the ones that must update their skills.

Callum said,

I honestly don't understand why it takes some people time to adapt to changes, even big changes. Every change Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc make to their products seems to be intuitive to me. I've never had a problem adapting to any new interface change in software.

People generally, as they get older, can't adapt as easy.
My grandfather had a fit when i changed his browser for IE to Chrome Haha

Callum said,

I honestly don't understand why it takes some people time to adapt to changes, even big changes. Every change Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc make to their products seems to be intuitive to me. I've never had a problem adapting to any new interface change in software.

You don't represent the majority. Sorry to break it to ya

Callum said,

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

Clearly, not someone who's ever had to support users on any kind of professional basis...

Callum said,

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

Tell that to my mom who keeps on forgetting what that "House" icon on Firefox means and at times she has to refer to her notes

Callum said,

Unfortunately It annoys me so much that some people are like this. It really is not hard to adapt quickly to changing interfaces and technology.

It depends what the changes bring: For example II love the WP7 GUI but I completely dislike the philosophy behind the OS and miss the flexibility of WM 6.5.XX

Sas Center said,
that means you need to develop an app two times, doesn't it?

Depends on the app, and how you developed it. I'd imagine that they are going to make it so that .NET apps which use XAML will be able to have a XAML for Metro and a XAML for the normal UI

Sas Center said,
that means you need to develop an app two times, doesn't it?

If you code badly and mix up presentation and programming logic, yes.

Sas Center said,
that means you need to develop an app two times, doesn't it?

That would be pointless. If your app can function and work excellently in the Immersive experience, your users should only ever need it for that experience. They shouldn't require it for the old desktop experience.

Callum said,

That would be pointless. If your app can function and work excellently in the Immersive experience, your users should only ever need it for that experience. They shouldn't require it for the old desktop experience.

Not if the potential user dislike the "immersive experience" or just prefers the previous one..

Personally, and just based on what shown so far, I lke the new one but if you are a developer you must keep in mind what your potential buyers want.

Aethec said,

If you code badly and mix up presentation and programming logic, yes.

That is only true if you disregard the view in the MVC model. You still need extra development if you are to adapt if for different UI paradigms. And then there's the different forms of packaging, and shipping two versions.

Personally, I think Windows developers will simply pick just one of these interfaces, though.

Tuishimi said,
Oh whence comest thee beta?
iirc the beta is rumored to be announced and released at that conference, so keep your fingers crossed

Tuishimi said,
Oh whence comest thee beta?

I predictest thee thou beta will arriveth at build, but quite possibly only for thine MSDN/Technet members. lol.