Windows 8 UI Is Chromeless

[remixedcat]

I'd rather have nice programs then dumbed down baby apps.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I'd rather have nice programs then dumbed down baby apps.

Thats exactly what this is.

Microsoft have some stupid idea in their head that this Metro UI "language" is the best thing since sliced bread and they are trying to create an ecosystem like Apple has, they want parity across all the deviecs such as Phone, Xbox, Tablets, Computers. They are dumbing down the computer experience for the iPad generation, they are playing a very dangerous game potentially alienating a large number of desktop users by shoehorning a touch centric UI for the sake of it, there is no logical reason.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Callum
Removed something about my signature; sent personal message

[SekaiStory]

Microsoft have some stupid idea in their head that this Metro UI "language" is the best thing since sliced bread and they are trying to create an ecosystem like Apple has, they want parity across all the deviecs such as Phone, Xbox, Tablets, Computers. They are dumbing down the computer experience for the iPad generation, they are playing a very dangerous game potentially alienating a large number of desktop users by shoehorning a touch centric UI for the sake of it, there is no logical reason.

Apple doesn't even have anything near an ecosystem. (aside from iPhone/iPad)

[TheLegendOfMart]

Apple doesn't even have anything near an ecosystem. (aside from iPhone/iPad)

Thought it did?

iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV all run IOS which is based on OSX that iMac, Macbook, etc... run?

[Riggers]

They are dumbing down the computer experience for the iPad generation, they are playing a very dangerous game potentially alienating a large number of desktop users by shoehorning a touch centric UI for the sake of it, there is no logical reason.

I suppose the only logical reason for it is this is where Microsoft thinks the future of modern computing is heading. Whether that`s the case is a different story. Personally i think there will be 2 ways of using windows 8, one being the "traditional" method a`la windows 7 (maybe with a few extra bits and bobs) and then the tile layout as shown.

It`s seems the majority of the development for 8 is being geared towards it being usable in the tablet form factor!

I`m looking forward to trying it out, but think it may get a mixed reception...

[OOOOOOOO]

^ I want my Aero!

I bet you like the old facebook design too :D

Windows 8 is a GOOD step forward ... you can still access the file system, you can still use power apps etc , but it offers a nice intuitive UI. I think it's a bold step by Microsoft and I WILL upgrade my PC's in the house to Windows 8.

[Ayepecks]

They didn't have much time during these demonstrations. The reason they may have only mentioned HTML5 and JavaScript apps could be because they are the new ones. They only mentioned them; they didn't go into detail. It's very possible .NET Framework and Silverlight apps will still be able to be developed for the new, immersive experience, but you and others are assuming this won't be the case before Microsoft have even detailed their plans for developers. As I say, Microsoft did not detail the development platform at all, they merely mentioned one thing: The development model is based around HTML5 and JavaScript. Based on that statement, It's fine to speculate that developers may not be able to make Silverlight or .NET Framework apps, but it's not fine to assume they won't as Microsoft have not detailed the platform.

I am not making any illogical assumptions. Your example isn't an assumption I have made. I haven't assumed that Microsoft are or aren't going to allow us to develop .NET or Silverlight immersive apps; I have simply said we should wait until they detail their development platform. That makes sense.

You haven't provided any examples of illogical assumptions I've made. You've just blindly accused me of that with no examples :/ Of course we should wait until they have given us enough information to reasonably conclude something; that is what makes sense. We shouldn't assume before we have the information. I am specifically talking about those who say it won't be usable with a keyboard and mouse; there is no way for us to know that at present.

I've been fine with every major change I can remember to any technology product I've used because all of those changes have provided me with benefits, and the technology has been better overall because of those benefits or a nicer look and feel. I am being honest; all the updated versions I can remember to any technology product or piece of software I have used. I wouldn't be dishonest about that; if something provided me with disadvantages, and wasn't beneficial overall, I would complain and be against it. I was very vocal against Internet Explorer 7 and 8, and I was vocal about some of the initial disadvantages of Windows Phone (although these have been addressed in the Mango update and Windows Phone as a whole has been very beneficial to me). From what they've shown of Windows 8, it appears to provide me with no disadvantages in terms of how I currently operate or would like to operate, and it seems it will provide me with many benefits. It's a major change, but one which looks to be fantastic, and it's actually very similar to what I was hoping after using Windows Phone. I am a power user, but it will not hinder me in any way (as a power user). Since posting here, I have been informed that some users like to have more than 2 programs open on the screen at any one time, and Windows 8 could hinder those, so I might be concerned that if Microsoft do not address this, more users will switch; however, I am not concerned at all for myself because the whole concept makes sense to me and from the little they've showed it seems many benefits are coming my way.

What have you been illogical about? You're joking... right?

For one, what I just discussed to you: the programming languages utilized for the Start screen applications. Previously we were discussing the strength of the applications on the Start screen, and you took exception when I stated they'd be simple, non-intensive apps (read: not something like Photoshop, for instance). Now you're backtracking on that and saying maybe .NET will be included in the programming languages allowed for Start screen apps. That wasn't the discussion, and I made it clear to emphasize that with my point on the Start screen not being able to utilize intensive applications written in languages like C++.

You've been trying to come across as though you're taking some level-headed approach to these discussions when, in reality, all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand and pretending we don't know anything about Windows 8 until it's released. You've also made absurd comments implying Microsoft Bob was usable. How can I respect anything you say when you make comments that are clearly beyond logical loyalty to Microsoft?

Numerous times you have said that people don't need to have more than two windows open at once. That makes no sense to me. Either you rarely use Windows, or you're one of the least intensive users on Neowin, which I find hard to believe. It's extremely common for me to have multiple windows open, especially when I'm doing something like creating a media guide in InDesign, using Photoshop to modify certain elements, keeping my e-mail open to check for changes, using Windows Explorer to more easily find old files in other media guides, etc. This is obviously at one end of the spectrum, but think about how many times you've had any sort of editing program open (any Office product), a web browser, e-mail client, Steam client, antivirus software, music (MP3) software, etc.

You keep repeating yourself about how we know nothing about the OS and should just trust Microsoft, because they know about operating systems. Uh, yeah, great logic -- if they were infallible. You act as if people who have knowledge on a certain type of product have never made poor products of that type before, which historically, is so far from the truth I don't know how you can even remotely state as much with a good conscience.

Listen, I love Metro. I even love the Start screen UI. But that doesn't mean I think it's going to work well for most users. It will probably work amazing for tablets, but for desktop PCs I'm very concerned about how Microsoft thinks people use their PCs.

[Calum Veteran]

What have you been illogical about? You're joking... right?

No, I'm not joking. You still haven't provided me with legitimate examples of any illogical things I've said, so I maintain that your accusation is wrong. Everything I've said is logical.

For one, what I just discussed to you: the programming languages utilized for the Start screen applications. Previously we were discussing the strength of the applications on the Start screen, and you took exception when I stated they'd be simple, non-intensive apps (read: not something like Photoshop, for instance).

This is wrong :/ I didn't take exception to that; I simply pointed out there has been no proof that developing apps like those will not be possible. That is fact.

Now you're backtracking on that and saying maybe .NET will be included in the programming languages allowed for Start screen apps. That wasn't the discussion, and I made it clear to emphasize that with my point on the Start screen not being able to utilize intensive applications written in languages like C++.

This is wrong :/ I haven't backtracked on anything. I have always said that we cannot be sure what development technologies will be allowed for development of the immersive applications because Microsoft haven't confirmed the others won't be. Windows apps have generally been developed using .NET Framework, Silverlight, and other similar technologies, so it's possible Microsoft will allow us to create immersive apps using those; none of us know this at present, and I have always maintained that.

You've been trying to come across as though you're taking some level-headed approach to these discussions when, in reality, all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand and pretending we don't know anything about Windows 8 until it's released.

This is wrong :/ I've never said we don't know anything about Windows 8. I've said we know little about it; that's true because Microsoft haven't told us much about it.

You've also made absurd comments implying Microsoft Bob was usable. How can I respect anything you say when you make comments that are clearly beyond logical loyalty to Microsoft?

I have never implied Bob was usable, and in that post you linked I even said "I didn't [use it], so I'm not going to comment on its usability." How can you suggest I said that when the post you linked to even contradicts what you are saying? I'm being very polite here; please, ensure you have read posts of mine which cover the things you're saying because this reply of yours has contained many incorrect accusations about what I've said :/

I'm not "loyal to Microsoft" either which it seems you might be implying. I've just switched to using Google Search for a bit to try it out again. I'm never loyal to companies; I just use the services that provide me the most benefit.

Numerous times you have said that people don't need to have more than two windows open at once. That makes no sense to me.

This is wrong :/ I have never said other people don't need that many open; I have said I don't need that many open. A few posts ago, I acknowledged that some other people follow a different use case to me; it didn't need to be acknowledged as it is common sense, but people implied I wasn't aware of that obvious fact.

Either you rarely use Windows, or you're one of the least intensive users on Neowin, which I find hard to believe.

I am at my Windows PC for many hours a day developing or designing with 2 monitors active. Throughout my time at university and developing for a company I worked with for a whole year, I never needed to have more than 2 windows active on a screen at the same time; I tried it, but it provided me with no extra benefit. It doesn't take much time or effort to switch windows with those that are minimised so it has never affected my productivity. I know this because I have tried having more than 2 open on the screen. I am a very intensive power user, but I understand how to work productively with no more than 2 apps active on each screen at any one time.

It's extremely common for me to have multiple windows open, especially when I'm doing something like creating a media guide in InDesign, using Photoshop to modify certain elements, keeping my e-mail open to check for changes, using Windows Explorer to more easily find old files in other media guides, etc. This is obviously at one end of the spectrum, but think about how many times you've had any sort of editing program open (any Office product), a web browser, e-mail client, Steam client, antivirus software, music (MP3) software, etc.

Most of the software you mentioned there is minimised for me the majority of the time. I receive email notifications when I receive a new email, so I don't need that app active on the screen; when I'm listening to music, I'm listening, not watching, so I don't need that app active on the screen; when I'm finding something in Windows Explorer, I'm specifically looking for something (that is my current focus), so I only need that one app active on the screen. Do you see where I'm going with this? If I'm reading something on a web browser, or posting a post here on Neowin, I only need the web browser app active on the screen and nothing else. There are many use cases when developing, but there has never been one for me where I've had to have more than 2 apps on the screen at once. If I'm learning a new SDK, I can have the documentation on one side of the screen, and the code file I'm working on on the other side. Those are the only windows I need at that moment. I could have other code files or something open on another monitor, or in other places on that screen, but I don't need them there because I'm not working on those code files at that moment (them being there would provide me with no benefit). I could go on, but I imagine you catch my drift.

Continued in subsequent post

[Calum Veteran]

You keep repeating yourself about how we know nothing about the OS and should just trust Microsoft, because they know about operating systems.

Again, this is wrong I've not maintained we know nothing about it; I've maintained we know little about it.

Uh, yeah, great logic -- if they were infallible. You act as if people who have knowledge on a certain type of product have never made poor products of that type before, which historically, is so far from the truth I don't know how you can even remotely state as much with a good conscience.

Of course it's possible Windows 8 won't be usable, and of course it's possible we can't trust Microsoft; however, many people are acting like we shouldn't trust Microsoft and that Windows 8 will be unusable; this is what is wrong at present. I've maintained that we should be cautious and await further facts and information; I've also said we should ensure we try it and watch all demonstrations until we can reasonably conclude how usable it is. However, I've pointed out many times it is wrong to assume this will definitely be unusable, and it is wrong to assume Microsoft is definitely lying. This is what many people are doing. Do you honestly disagree with me on this? Do you honestly believe it is fine for people to claim that Microsoft is definitely lying and Windows 8 is definitely going to be unusable, at this stage? People cannot state definites like that at this stage, and that is what has caused this debate. I have consistently said that it's fine to speculate that it may be unusable, but most appear to not be doing that; they're saying it definitely won't be usable.

Listen, I love Metro. I even love the Start screen UI. But that doesn't mean I think it's going to work well for most users. It will probably work amazing for tablets, but for desktop PCs I'm very concerned about how Microsoft thinks people use their PCs.

That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having concern and awaiting the facts like it appears you are doing and have been doing. My problem is with those who aren't waiting for the facts, and who don't appear willing to give it a chance. People are already stating it definitely won't be usable when they don't know what Microsoft have up their sleeve, and they haven't yet been provided enough information to conclude it won't be usable.

[Travesty]

Oh sweet you guys found another post to cry in :) good job on getting the other one closed btw :yes:

[Calum Veteran]

Oh sweet you guys found another post to cry in :) good job on getting the other one closed btw :yes:

I'm going to do my best to ensure this debate is polite, friendly, and not heated; that includes all of my replies as well :happy:

[Travesty]

I'm going to do my best to ensure this debate is polite, friendly, and not heated; and that includes all of my replies as well :)

I just think everyone needs to sit back count to ten and relax a little, we really have no idea what MS is up to and have only seen a small bit of what I think is going to be a much bigger picture. There's no reason to get so emotional over all this especially at this moment in time.

[KingCrimson]

Maybe this thread should be closed as it's all speculation.

[Ayepecks]

Are you serious with all these two-post analyses of a few paragraphs, Callum? Get a grip and just respond like everyone else does. It may make it look like you're breaking down posts and making all these well-thought counterpoints, but you're just repeating yourself over and over, and none of it is logical. You honestly think only having two applications open at a time is a logical thing for an operating system to limit you to? You honestly think that just because Microsoft hasn't said it will allow C++ applications in the Stat screen means that they actually will? That kind of "logic" isn't logic -- it's pandering to the inevitability of people not continuing this discussion with you when Windows 8 is actually released and you know it.

Not only that, you're blatantly lying at this point. "That is a fact" that there's no proof that developing apps in C++ won't be possible? No, there is plenty of proof on that front. Read responses from the Google search I provided you in a previous post -- at best, there may be .NET support and possibly Silverlight. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that traditional applications will be usable in the Start screen, and that is a fact. All the comments from Microsoft leads to a completely different conclusion -- one that is actually logical, unlike your illogical 'but they didn't say it, nya-nya-nya!' sticking your head in the sand.

Nothing I've said is "wrong, sideways-face." You're becoming more and more absurd. You can keep saying you didn't say this-and-this, but all one has to do is look at your posts. You've directly made implications, and now you're trying to hide behind them. Asking someone to prove Microsoft Bob is unusable instead of acknowledging critical reviews that stated as much is absurd. Asking people to prove C++ and other complex languages aren't possible in the Start screen is absurd. Microsoft's commentary on the issue has pretty much cemented that fact.

Let's make this bet right now: when Windows 8 is released, do you honestly expect programs to be written in anything other than HTML5, Javascript, .NET and Silverlight? Because if you don't even believe that, why on earth are you arguing it? There shouldn't need to be a "MICROSOFT SAYS X IS NOT POSSIBLE" article in order for you to comprehend it's not possible when everything they've stated has implicated as much.

[KingCrimson]

Native Win32 apps will still be able to run on Windows 8.

[Ayepecks]

Native Win32 apps will still be able to run on Windows 8.

I'm aware that older apps will still run on Windows 8 (at least the 64-bit and X86 processors; some programs can always be recompiled to support ARM, however). The discussion was whether they'll run in the desktop environment or on the Start screen. The answer is in the desktop environment, unless they're written in certain languages (primarily Internet-friendly languages).

Microsoft has already shown that the Office suite will run in the desktop environment.

[Calum Veteran]

Are you serious with all these two-post analyses of a few paragraphs, Callum? Get a grip and just respond like everyone else does.

Other people respond in that way. It helps make it clear which point of yours I'm responding to. It sounds to me as if you're not happy with that because I've refuted everything you've said. It does mean I repeat myself more, but it appears I have to because you are still misreading my posts as I will point out below. I will try to reply in the same way you do and see whether it's effective, but don't suggest everyone replies like that because some other people (e.g. MFH) reply in the same way I do (separating the whole reply into different quotes).

You honestly think only having two applications open at a time is a logical thing for an operating system to limit you to? You honestly think that just because Microsoft hasn't said it will allow C++ applications in the Stat screen means that they actually will? That kind of "logic" isn't logic -- it's pandering to the inevitability of people not continuing this discussion with you when Windows 8 is actually released and you know it.

Please point out to me where you believe I've said limiting the user to 2 applications on view at the same time is a good idea. I have never said that. I've said I'd be fine with that, but I've never said it's a good idea. Please also point out to me where you believe I stated I think Microsoft will allow users to develop immersive C++ applications. I have also never said that. I said they may; I have said it's a possibility. I have never said I think they will; it's a case of might, not will at present. I personally don't believe they'll allow people to develop immersive C++ applications; I've simply been pointing out you cannot say for definite they will not because they haven't told us whether they will or not.

You have clearly misread my posts :/ and I'm not sure why you continue to misread them. I've communicated clearly haven't I?

Every time I've asked you to point out which of what I've said is illogical, you've not quoted anything I've said, but have instead mentioned things I haven't said :s This further backs up my assertiveness that everything I've said is logical. Please pick something I have actually said and tell me how it is illogical.

[Calum Veteran]

Asking someone to prove Microsoft Bob is unusable instead of acknowledging critical reviews that stated as much is absurd. Asking people to prove C++ and other complex languages aren't possible in the Start screen is absurd. Microsoft's commentary on the issue has pretty much cemented that fact.

Let's make this bet right now: when Windows 8 is released, do you honestly expect programs to be written in anything other than HTML5, Javascript, .NET and Silverlight? Because if you don't even believe that, why on earth are you arguing it? There shouldn't need to be a "MICROSOFT SAYS X IS NOT POSSIBLE" article in order for you to comprehend it's not possible when everything they've stated has implicated as much.

I don't have time to search for such reviews. He said it was unusable, so I asked him to tell me how because I've never seen it or used it. That isn't absurd; he made the claim, so it's only fair he explains how. The burden of proof is always on the person accusing; that is not absurd, it is logical and reasonable.

I have never asked anyone to prove that developing immersive applications in C++ is possible. Never. The above post of yours clearly implies I stated this. I'm now going to stop simply telling you I've never said things you wrongly state I've said, and instead I'll ask you to point out where I've said them. So here, please may you now link me and others to the post of mine in which you believe I asked people to prove this. I hope you are decent enough to admit you are wrong, like I do when I am wrong :)

I'm not expecting anything specific in terms of immersive apps because Microsoft have said hardly anything about their new development platform. I'll state what I think is most likely though: I think it's most likely developers will be able to develop immersive apps using .NET Framework, Silverlight, HTML 5, and JavaScript; however, I would not be surprised if Microsoft only allow use of HTML 5 and JavaScript. You still don't understand my point though. My point is that it doesn't matter what we think is likely. All that matters is the facts, and the fact is that Microsoft have only said their new development platform will be based around HTML 5 and JavaScript; they have not said anything else about their other development technologies. This is why I am arguing my point about this; I am so passionate about this because of my principles. I despise when people ignore facts, and I feel the need to refute them when they do. It's dangerous of people to ignore facts because it could lead to them abandoning a service that actually works for them, and the company that provide that service could lose their custom. Seeing as I will most likely be using and preferring Windows 8, I'd like Microsoft to be successful, so I'm trying to convince all of those who are ignoring the facts to start acknowledging the facts and to start being reasonable.

It's as simple as this: It is fact that Microsoft hasn't detailed their development platform, and hasn't told us what will be possible, so you cannot reasonably make the assumptions you have been making. You can speculate and state what you think is likely (as I have), but you cannot say "Microsoft definitely won't allow us to develop C++ immersive apps"; that is just not reasonable at this stage, despite how unlikely of an option C++ is.

[Ayepecks]

I give up. Seriously, there's no point in even discussing with someone who hides behind the "well it's still a possibility!" argument.

I'm not happy with you not because you're refuting what I say -- which, you are doing, but you're not giving any facts to back it up. I'm unhappy with you because you're being intentionally stubborn; you're unwilling to concede the obvious, simply because it's a "possibility", no matter how slim the possibility. If you're arguing for a possibility to exist, then you're arguing in support of that possibility, otherwise don't bother bringing that weak argument to the table.

Stop hiding behind rhetoric and say what you mean. I can argue in hypotheticals and "well it's still a possibility!" arguments, too. That doesn't make my arguments logical given the information we've been presented with. If you don't have time to search Google for five seconds to give you the information you request, then you're simply lazy. And, similarly, you claim you advocate "facts" when all you give are hypotheticals. The facts that we're discussing in regards to the Start screen programs is that Microsoft has only stated HTML5 and Javascript will work; you have argued for possibilities of other programming languages (including C++) to be utilized in the Start screen, despite any facts to implicate as much. Furthermore, for all the claims of me not properly reading your posts, you clearly didn't read mine closely, because it was a question posed to you, not an accusation. You refused to answer said question as well, because you'd rather live in your irrational, unlikely possiblities.

Being purposefully ignorant is not a logical argument. I'll let other people get sucked into your "possibility" arguments, but I'm done with this silly game you're playing. (N)

[Calum Veteran]

I give up. Seriously, there's no point in even discussing with someone who hides behind the "well it's still a possibility!" argument.

I'm not happy with you not because you're refuting what I say -- which, you are doing, but you're not giving any facts to back it up. I'm unhappy with you because you're being intentionally stubborn; you're unwilling to concede the obvious, simply because it's a "possibility", no matter how slim the possibility. If you're arguing for a possibility to exist, then you're arguing in support of that possibility, otherwise don't bother bringing that weak argument to the table.

Stop hiding behind rhetoric and say what you mean. I can argue in hypotheticals and "well it's still a possibility!" arguments, too. That doesn't make my arguments logical given the information we've been presented with. If you don't have time to search Google for five seconds to give you the information you request, then you're simply lazy. And, similarly, you claim you advocate "facts" when all you give are hypotheticals. The facts that we're discussing in regards to the Start screen programs is that Microsoft has only stated HTML5 and Javascript will work; you have argued for possibilities of other programming languages (including C++) to be utilized in the Start screen, despite any facts to implicate as much. Furthermore, for all the claims of me not properly reading your posts, you clearly didn't read mine closely, because it was a question posed to you, not an accusation. You refused to answer said question as well, because you'd rather live in your irrational, unlikely possiblities.

Being purposefully ignorant is not a logical argument. I'll let other people get sucked into your "possibility" arguments, but I'm done with this silly game you're playing. (N)

It's not a weak argument. I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm stating the obvious: It is not fine to say for definite something won't exist when you don't know it won't exist.

People are saying that Windows 8 will definitely be unusable. Is it fine for them to say that for sure at this stage even when it's very possible Windows 8 will be usable? No, it isn't; however, this is what happens when people do not follow facts. Likewise, people are saying one definitely will not be able to develop immersive C++ applications in Windows 8. Is it fine for them to say that for sure at this stage even when Microsoft have not confirmed this and when they haven't mentioned much about their new development platform? No, it is not. Of course it's unlikely developers would be able to do so, but it's not an impossible situation.

Microsoft has not said only HTML 5 and JavaScript will work, and this is again you getting your facts wrong. Microsoft's wording was this: "A new development platform based around HTML 5 and JavaScript." They mentioned nothing about what will and won't work.

Ayepecks, if I told you I was developing a new development framework, would you assume it definitely has nothing to do with C++? If you would, that would be illogical. That is what you are doing here with what Microsoft have said. Microsoft have said they have a new development platform based around HTML 5 and JavaScript, not mentioning any of their current technologies, and you state C++ will definitely not be a part of that even though Microsoft have not confirmed this. It makes sense to state it's unlikely, but it doesn't make sense to state it definitely won't happen.

I'm not hiding behind any rhetoric and I'm saying exactly what I mean. I'm being clear and getting to the points.

Of course recognising possibility doesn't make arguments logical; I am merely saying it is logical to recognise possibility because it is.

It wasn't a case of searching Google for 5 minutes. I've never seen Microsoft Bob in action and have heard little about it; it would have taken me a lot more than 5 minutes to read all about it, read the reviews, and understand exactly why people were saying it was unusable. Either way, this discussion about Microsoft Bob is irrelevant because I didn't even imply what you said I was implying; it was another case of you lying.

Of course I advocate facts; that is why I have wasted my time explaining to you many times that facts are important. I have given hypothetical situations when facts are not present because unlike you I realise it is wrong to assume when we don't have enough information.

It wasn't a question posed to me; it was an accusation of my posts and thoughts (a wrong accusation).

I'm not being ignorant, and there is no game.

[remixedcat]

If you could, at this point run MS office, for example from the start screen.... then why didn't MS show it off. You are supposed to show off the best and wow people are early as possible so they can start setting asside cash for it.

it's like a trailer for an action movie, however it only shows a guy walking down the street talking to an old guy.... doesn't make you wanna see it does it? you might not even know it will be an action movie...

from only what we see now it looks like an intermediary OS made for both but could use a lot of work.... at this point I would not know what it was (pretending I've never heard of windows 8 before)

from that impression.

I've shown this video to someone who has never heard of windows 8 and still even uses xp. they did not think microsoft made it. they thought it was a concept made by some small french company.

so allready microsoft has lost thier identity with this version. from showing a 1 minute video to someone who has never head of windows 8.

it may take them a lot of work to change people and this might be too late.

[Calum Veteran]

If you could, at this point run MS office, for example from the start screen.... then why didn't MS show it off. You are supposed to show off the best and wow people are early as possible so they can start setting asside cash for it.

it's like a trailer for an action movie, however it only shows a guy walking down the street talking to an old guy.... doesn't make you wanna see it does it? you might not even know it will be an action movie...

from only what we see now it looks like an intermediary OS made for both but could use a lot of work.... at this point I would not know what it was (pretending I've never heard of windows 8 before)

from that impression.

I've shown this video to someone who has never heard of windows 8 and still even uses xp. they did not think microsoft made it. they thought it was a concept made by some small french company.

so allready microsoft has lost thier identity with this version. from showing a 1 minute video to someone who has never head of windows 8.

it may take them a lot of work to change people and this might be too late.

They haven't developed Office as an immersive app yet, it appears, which is why they haven't shown it. It is apparently around a year until Windows 8 will be released though, so they may have time to develop a version of Office in the immersive style. It's likely they won't because of what Julie said at the D9 conference, but she didn't rule it out completely; she said "They may do something in the future." I personally think it will be a huge mistake if they don't develop Office as an immersive application; not doing so doesn't do much to promote this new platform as something that can ever take over the current (old?) way of developing. I hope it can replace the old way, and I have a feeling how it can, but all divisions of Microsoft need to be behind the platform for it to take off with other developers and maintain/garner their faith.

Like you, I'm also very concerned with how average users, or even other technology enthusiasts, will react to the new experience. While it seems to me like it's going to be a much better experience, and it will finally be consistent with the Windows Phone experience, I expect there to be a lot of backlash from users who don't understand it and aren't willing to give it a chance. I'm concerned they will lose a lot of users because these users aren't willing to give it a chance. Saying that, if these users have already purchased Windows 8 or their new PC before they have decided to give it a chance, it may be that they are stuck with it for a year or so in which time they'll end up giving it a chance; I hope that is the case with the majority of those who will look at it and panic :)

[remixedcat]

I am not against it entirely, however I'm a power user and I love rich displays that are full of information and I love having more at my fingertips and this minimalism shift is what bothers me.

I also hate things being hidden to the point of needing more steps to perform the same action.I prefer if it were on a toolbar vs having to click a button, then a menu, then a button to perform the action, sure it looks better, however I prefer function over form.

This is why I use media players like Media Jukebox vs windows media player and I use firefox instead of IE. they are more powerful applications with rich functionality. I feel naked using IE and WMP.

[MFH]

Just shorties as this has to end :) Think these threads got way to heated up?

On thing upfront: @Callum you can't just quit, can you? :) You said, you'd leave, yet you're still here debating (Y)

MFH, I hope you also decide to actually give Windows 8 a chance; wait until you hear the facts and try it out.

Of course I will give it a try - will try out the beta in a VM? But from what we've seen until now I doubt that I will move to 8 due to the productivity concerns - I think I already pointed them out in detail?

Windows apps have generally been developed using .NET Framework, Silverlight, and other similar technologies?

I hope you know that that's just plain wrong. The majority of Windows programs is not developed in .NET?

All that matters is the facts, and the fact is that Microsoft have only said their new development platform will be based around HTML 5 and JavaScript; they have not said anything else about their other development technologies.

I think you're ignoring one thing here: You don't actually have to say something like "there won't be .NET", it's enough not to mention them to show that emphasis of those has gone down. We saw the same thing when .NET was the next big thing with C++, it was no major aspect, even the Visual Studio team admits that - just watch a few videos on Channel 9 and you will notice how interest in C++ has just recently started to grow after sinking for years?

Furthermore: After the Silverlight-developer rage and no reaction of Microsoft in terms of the future of Silverlight there are not too many things to speculate. They spread way too much doubt among the developers if there was still an emphasis on Silverlight. I think we will be told that Silverlight is no longer part of the big picture and will be deprecated - at least to some extend - in favor of the new development platform.

Ayepecks, if I told you I was developing a new development framework, would you assume it definitely has nothing to do with C++? If you would, that would be illogical.

If you told me your framework was built around Java - just as they said "based on HTML5 and JavaScript" - for example I wouldn't expect it to support .NET or any native programming language, so no it's not that illogical.

[1] she said "They may do something in the future."

[2]?but all divisions of Microsoft need to be behind the platform for it to take off with other developers and maintain/garner their faith.

[3]?and it will finally be consistent with the Windows Phone experience

[1] I see a problem here if it's really up to the division and wasn't just a polite way of saying "we can't disclose that at this point".

[2] That will be a tough on. Internal fights over products have killed ideas before - and I fear it will again?

[3] We had that before - named Windows mobile - and it's "success" proved that user interfaces have to be designed for the devices they are used with. That's especially obvious if you look at Apple's success with the iPhone and even Android's rise to "power".

[LightShadow]

Just thought of this but wanted to add it in. For people moaning about the full-screen apps (A.K.A Immersive). It'll be mainstream by 2013 I think, Apple is doing it with full-screen apps in OS X Lion.