Metro Microsoft Live services vs WL Essentials 2011?

By Steven P.
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Steven P. Administrators

Posted
  • Administrators
Posted

Maybe it's me, but I really can't understand Microsoft's implementation of Live Services within Windows 8.

I tried to use it, before giving up and just using Windows Live Essentials 2011.

Now I'm signed in at two places on the same computer because I linked my Microsoft ID with my domain account, the metro messenger app is clunky and not intuitive at all, I prefer the WLM pane with my contacts showing on my 2nd desktop all the time with open conversations on that same desktop. Messages popup as (metro) notifications alerts long after I've already received them in WLM 2011 and to top it off I also have Skydrive installed as a virtual drive in My Computer, I fail to see how the Metro version could ever replace it?

Can anyone who's had more success with the Live services explain to me what I'm doing wrong? :p

Edit: The People app and Messenger app isn't easy to use either.

Grand Master

Steven P. Administrators

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrators
Posted

Th integrated apps aren't replacing the live suite anyway. Different uses.

Well there's almost one for every WL Essentials app. Why would anyone want two versions of Skydrive and Messenger installed among others anyway?

Grand Master

scumdogmillionaire

Posted
Posted

I've been trying to figure this out, too. Especially Photo Gallery, with batch people tagging and the photo fuse or whatever they call it. The current metro app seems like a pretty huge step backwards, so it's either FAR from done, or there will be an updated set of desktop apps.... right?

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

Conceptually I think people have a problem understanding the new metro apps, that and the fact they're not necessarily gonna replace the desktop versions on a desktop.

But people are used to WLM for example haing image sharing, file transfer and all that bolt into the one app, and mail replicates some of that and soon.

With metro, these apps are use a front end for the full live back end that's fully integrated into windows. That means that the people/messaging app,it only needs to do what it's supposed to, lis people and message them, or receive messages. Meanwhile image sharing or transfer is handled fully by the OS through the charm menu, which then lets ou share the image over any method you choose, WLM, mail, cloud storage.... Same with file transfer and all that other stuff. Handled like these all the apps don't need to duplicate functions, instead they share the functions through a more intelligent OS design.

This is also something any WP user will recognize and appreciate.

For a desktop user this might to make sense though and they may choose to disable the metro apps for messaging and mail and instead use the old and eventually new desktop live apps. It's not like MS going to abandon a powerful desktop app like live mail in favor of metro mail. Metro mail is good enough for a lot of things and people but is not a live mail replacement.

Enthusiast

fenderMarky

Posted
Posted

Maybe it's me, but I really can't understand Microsoft's implementation of Live Services within Windows 8.

I tried to use it, before giving up and just using Windows Live Essentials 2011.

Now I'm signed in at two places on the same computer because I linked my Microsoft ID with my domain account, the metro messenger app is clunky and not intuitive at all, I prefer the WLM pane with my contacts showing on my 2nd desktop all the time with open conversations on that same desktop. Messages popup as (metro) notifications alerts long after I've already received them in WLM 2011 and to top it off I also have Skydrive installed as a virtual drive in My Computer, I fail to see how the Metro version could ever replace it?

Can anyone who's had more success with the Live services explain to me what I'm doing wrong? :p

Edit: The People app and Messenger app isn't easy to use either.

Metro apps are optimized for low bandwidth usage... if you will download emails from the desktop app with a 3G connection, you can start to sell your car to pay the bill. Are you on a desktop? Don't use metro apps... easy

Collaborator

Coolicer

Posted
Posted

"Damned if they do, damned if they don't"

That pretty much summarizes everything Microsoft does/doesn't do to their most popular products.

  • FalseAgent and Brandon H
  • Like 2
Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Depends on how you want to use your computer. Metro on the go, desktop at home, etc.

What about those of us who would like to use Metro at home, too? There is no way I would enjoy using the Metro experience on the go and the desktop experience at home because the two are incredibly inconsistent.

I would hope that Microsoft will update these apps with great features before release, and the "APP PREVIEW" labels seem to suggest they will.

Metro apps are optimized for low bandwidth usage... if you will download emails from the desktop app with a 3G connection, you can start to sell your car to pay the bill. Are you on a desktop? Don't use metro apps... easy

It isn't "easy" because the Metro experience was designed for use on desktop PCs, too.

Grand Master

Stoffel

Posted
Posted

Does anybody have this problem with the Messaging App.

I can only start a conversation with people that I have on messenger, not my facebook contact.

But when FB contacts start a conversation with me it picks it up.

If I just start the people app I can see all my contacts from FB and Messenger.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

The included Metro apps are previews and only have incredibly basic functionality, hence why they have the disclaimer at the top - Microsoft is going out of its way to make sure users don't confuse them for the final version. In fact some of them are verging on unusable because of how limited they are, like Mail and Music. However, even though I like Windows 8 I really can't see myself using Metro apps for anything other than snapping to the side of my desktop. I have a 30" display and make extensive use of multi-tasking, so the last thing I want is for an app like Mail or Skydrive to take up the entire screen - I much prefer using the desktop with Aero Snap. The only Metro app I use in fullscreen mode is the XE.com currency converter, which is a considerable improvement over the website. Metro apps are more suited to tablets or touchscreens, though I think they should be differentiated from the Metro Start screen which is designed with high resolution desktop monitors in mind and really works well.

Veteran

~Johnny

Posted
Posted

I hope they develop them with C++, right now it seems that they are developed with JavaScript.

The "People" application is incredibly terrible in terms of performance.

Microsoft do develop the logic in C++ - technically they use a HTML & JS frontend for the UI that call the C++ DLL's for the logic - for some reason they don't seem to want to use XAML & C++ at ALL within Microsoft, so we're only left with HTML. But yes, all the first party metro MS apps seems to use HTML (bar the Xbox team apps - I'm not sure what they use. Their performance is still pretty dire though too at the moment).

You have to use either DirectX, XAML or HTML as your UI frontend, even if you're using C++, and direct DirectX is out of the question unless you want to reimplement all the logic for all the controls.

Veteran

lalalawawawa

Posted
Posted

Microsoft do develop the logic in C++ - technically they use a HTML & JS frontend for the UI that call the C++ DLL's for the logic - for some reason they don't seem to want to use XAML & C++ at ALL within Microsoft, so we're only left with HTML. But yes, all the first party metro MS apps seems to use HTML (bar the Xbox team apps - I'm not sure what they use. Their performance is still pretty dire though too at the moment).

You have to use either DirectX, XAML or HTML as your UI frontend, even if you're using C++, and direct DirectX is out of the question unless you want to reimplement all the logic for all the controls.

Wouldn't XAML + C++ give better performance than HTML + JavaScript?

Veteran

~Johnny

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't XAML + C++ give better performance than HTML + JavaScript?

I'm not entirely sure, though I believe XAML is heavier on the RAM and takes the CPU longer to actually initially parse and create visuals from XAML than with HTML. Keep in mind the IE10 rendering and layout engine has seen WAY more optimization than the Silverlight based XAML engine in WinRT, which is probably why they're pushing it so much. In the current implementation, XAML touch events also have far more latency than touch events in HTML apps, and I'm not sure if that's be design or not (but it should be something Microsoft should easily be able to fix)

They've also gimped XAML in WinRT more than it was in Silverlight (which in turn could have been considered a step down from WPF) - gone are pixel shaders so no blurring or shadows, gone are even simple things like RadialGradientBrushes, gone is rendering visual elements to bitmaps, amongst other things. I'm sure if they put as much optimization effort into the XAML engine as they do with the IE engine things would get better, but the IE engine is a bigger priority for them, and given how much [not] effort there seems to be in actually improving XAML in WinRT, it doesn't look that bright.

Of course, I also think most developers would have a much easier and quicker time coding in XAML & C# / C++ than using HTML & JS in the first place too, and I prefer styling and animation in XAML over HTML / CSS & JS anyday.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.