No Metro = Windows 7 SP 2. Don't like Metro, stick with Windows 7.

[Dashel]

Still don't follow you. Sure, the desktop form factor won't live on as the defacto standard, no issue there. That doesn't mean that the form factor is obsolete, or to the point, that our form factor is so irrelevant already that it should be regulated to some harebrained definition of legacy support.

There is nothing stopping Windows from embracing other form factors. That isn't really a point of contention. The issue is that they are catering to one class of device at the expense of a much larger one. Cause billions of PCs is just sooo niche.

Where would computing or Windows be without portables? Same place we already are since they haven't done ****. Only the advent of ubiquitous networking and capacitive, lightweight screens has changed anything - namely the new mobile space that this OS clearly favors in its current state.

[Dot Matrix]

Does anyone here still believe in the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" in this case, if some of us like the classic UI we've been accustomed to, why not install the UI of our choice?

No. I personally, don't. The Ford Model-T wasn't broke either, but you know the rest.

What happens when a feature outlives its usefulness? Then what? Personally, I think the Classic UI should have been done with with Windows 7. The Start Menu died with Vista. It's time for all of that to go.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Does anyone here still believe in the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" in this case, if some of us like the classic UI we've been accustomed to, why not install the UI of our choice? you can't win people over friendly to a new OS by nailing them to a wall by force to make them use the new UI. I admit MS makes some good OSes but, whoever get the concept of the metro UI in their head needs to be fired.

hmm, so we should still be using nothing but DOS? it worked just fine, why should we have changed from that?

that aside, or maybe not, that saying doesn't really work, especially where technology is concerned in its ever evolving state

[PGHammer]

Does anyone here still believe in the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" in this case, if some of us like the classic UI we've been accustomed to, why not install the UI of our choice? you can't win people over friendly to a new OS by nailing them to a wall by force to make them use the new UI. I admit MS makes some good OSes but, whoever get the concept of the metro UI in their head needs to be fired.

And that sort of adage in IT is exactly what led to that five year desert between XP and Vista. Are you actually looking forward to another one?

Microsoft certainly isn't - and the rest of merely the US economy - let alone the global economy - is looking forward to it even less.

If anything, the poor economy has put more pressure on Microsoft - not less.

Or have we forgotten how important Windows is to the global economy - not just Microsoft as a company?

Right now, Windows is being dealt the "death of a thousand cuts" - and it isn't OS X, Linux, or even UNIX with the sharp/pointy objects. It's Android and the forks thereof, iOS, and other niche OSes.

If Microsoft stands pat (as the detractors are recommending), it will become a niche player. That much is certain.

Why are you in favor of that?

s

[chrisj1968]

hmm, so we should still be using nothing but DOS? it worked just fine, why should we have changed from that?

that aside, or maybe not, that saying doesn't really work, especially where technology is concerned in its ever evolving state

well no. but how does a interface for human interaction outlive it's usefulness? Well the only Microsoft has is itself. to me, back in the 90's MS was innovating software, breaking new ground. Seems now that MS is relevant in so much that, it acquires other companies, Skype comes to mind. But the start button/menu isn't dead. But some of you folks like the latest and greatest. me?, I'm a simple meat and potatoes kind of guy.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

well no. but how does a interface for human interaction outlive it's usefulness? Well the only Microsoft has is itself. to me, back in the 90's MS was innovating software, breaking new ground. Seems now that MS is relevant in so much that, it acquires other companies, Skype comes to mind. But the start button/menu isn't dead. But some of you folks like the latest and greatest. me?, I'm a simple meat and potatoes kind of guy.

it doesn't, but then how metro NOT an interface for human interaction?

you're right they aren't dead, they've just changed, like anything does over time, some changes are more extreme than others that's evolution. it's not always a good thing but how can you learn anything new if you don't experiment?

[Dot Matrix]

well no. but how does a interface for human interaction outlive it's usefulness?

It doesn't it evolves. Exactly what it's doing here. This marks the transition from static, point and click, to dynamic, and multi-input.

[PGHammer]

Still don't follow you. Sure, the desktop form factor won't live on as the defacto standard, no issue there. That doesn't mean that the form factor is obsolete, or to the point, that our form factor is so irrelevant already that it should be regulated to some harebrained definition of legacy support.

There is nothing stopping Windows from embracing other form factors. That isn't really a point of contention. The issue is that they are catering to one class of device at the expense of a much larger one. Cause billions of PCs is just sooo niche.

Where would computing or Windows be without portables? Same place we already are since they haven't done ****. Only the advent of ubiquitous networking and capacitive, lightweight screens has changed anything - namely the new mobile space that this OS clearly favors in its current state.

Favoring any particular class of device is no longer practical - and that includes the desktop form-factor.

That's the real reason for all the angst among the detractors - and they have actually dared admit it.

Until Windows 8, Windows itself had a strong desktop bias. (In fact, until recently, Windows didn't play very nice with portable PCs such as laptops and notebooks, and how much of an issue is Windows on netbooks today?)

Now, that desktop bias isn't there. And that very fact is why there are screams galore.

It can be honestly compared to the reaction among rednecks in Alabama when no less than George Wallace began courting the Black vote. (Some redneck wag actually had a poster of Wallace with horns, pitchfork, parka - and wearing ice skates - in front of a snow-covered Governor's House in Birmingham. Said poster made its way to Maryland - and eventually to CNN.)

That Windows 8 in Consumer Preview form is actually *better* in terms of backward compatibility than Windows 7 + Service Pack 1 is - despite that lack of desktop bias - has amazed even the detractors. (As well it should; as I myself pointed out, backward-compatibility has traditionally been a bugbear for betas of Windows.)

I know it sounds horrible to compare the UI-skewering that Windows 8 has caused to the angst among erstwhile Klanspersons to "Governor Segregation" actively courting Black voters; just think how it is for *me* (someone that is Black, a registered Democrat, who lives in the state where someone actually tried to KILL the man - and then to see the man change his spots so dramatically) to see avowed liberals acting like so many avowed Rick Santorum supporters and other reactionaries - all by moving from politics to Windows.

Is this how the Obamas would feel if they crashed the GOP convention later this year in Tampa?

[chrisj1968]

will be interesting to see if someone like these fellas who know the ins and outs of the windows interfaces will come up with something like a start menu

Just curious why MS doesn't want to play nice though... you know, with mozilla? seems crazy.

[Dashel]

So then really we agree, they have ****ed desktop users in their bid to support a wider range of devices under the Windows heading. Im not sure what you are basing Windows not supporting laptops comes from. Desktops/laptops/netbooks/ultrabooks all use the SAME control scheme so they all work just fine under the 'old' system.

Touch is the problem. GUIs are based around what the control mechanism is. So far, Win8 has made inroads like you say for touch devices, it ****s everyone who uses the keyboard and mouse. I just like how initially you denied that it retarded desktop users, now you admit it, call it 'legacy', and say thats the price for progress.

Instead of making the touch UI the overlay, MS in their infinite stupidity, has made the desktop the overlay. This singular **** up is why Win8 won't see its way on to anything but slate devices for me if they don't wise up.

Again, the things we want are so miniscule that only outright stubborness is making this an issue to begin with.

[Rickkins]

The Ford Model-T wasn't broke either, but you know the rest.

There often comes a time in a debate, where one side gaffes and proves the point of the other side. We have such a situation here. Cars are the same today as they were in the model T days, 4 tires, internal combustion engine, brakes, steering, windshield etc. What has changed, is they improved the form, not swapped it out for something completely different.

Game, set, match.

[Dot Matrix]

There often comes a time in a debate, where one side gaffes and proves the point of the other side. We have such a situation here. Cars are the same today as they were in the model T days, 4 tires, internal combustion engine, brakes, steering, windshield etc. What has changed, is they improved the form, not swapped it out for something completely different.

Game, set, match.

Not so fast.

It's the same thing that's happening here. There's nothing different about the Start Screen from the Start Menu other than the fact that it is full screen. Same workflow.

[Tarvis123]

I tried Windows 8 CP on my laptop for a couple of weeks and this is probably the first time in the long time of my Windows usage that I was disappointed. The start screen didn't really bother me, but the rest of the UI changes did. The control panel was awkward and felt like it took additional steps to complete the same configurations. I am also not a fan of the full screen programs as I think this is a huge waste of space/productivity.

I may be in the minority on here when it comes to the fact that the only touch device I own besides my phone is a Nintendo 3DS. I have no interest in slates/tablets or anything of the sort, so I am having a hard time figuring out how Windows 8 benefits me at all as far as Metro is concerned. As a network administrator, I can't see how it wouldn't hurt the productivity of my users since every single one of our machines is a mouse and keyboard setup, never mind the huge differences in layout that our regular users will not be at all familiar with - they already have a hard enough time trying to find the control panel or the run command.

I love getting new technology and software, and I've ran every version of Windows since XP as soon as it came out in retail, but I think Windows 8 might cause me to hesitate this time. Maybe I missed some things in the preview that would have made my experience better, or maybe Microsoft can prove me wrong by the time of retail release, but this feels like a step back for traditional ("legacy") desktop/laptop users.

[Rickkins]

Not so fast.

It's the same thing that's happening here. There's nothing different about the Start Screen from the Start Menu other than the fact that it is full screen. Same workflow.

Nice try, but you've already lost. Man up and admit it.

[bogas04]

Popcorn finished so i started dancing \m/

I wonder what is keeping this thread still alive

[Dot Matrix]

Nice try, but you've already lost. Man up and admit it.

Lost? I still recall the Metro start screen being ion Windows 8. ;)

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Nice try, but you've already lost. Man up and admit it.

what the hell are you talking about? what he said is correct

[Rickkins]

what the hell are you talking about? what he said is correct

Not even close. Using his own model t example, the forced inclusion of metro onto desktop environments is akin to putting the brakes in the trunk, and the steering wheel on the roof.

[shockz]

And now let's take Metro out:

Language and Standards support - Metro (WinRT)

Windows Store - Metro

Metro-style user interface - Metro

New logon methods - Metro

Windows Explorer - Service Pack

Task Manager - Service Pack

New easy restore - Metro based UI.

Microsoft account integration - Needs Metro, we already have a level of integration of Live in Windows 7

Windows to Go - Service Pack

Storage Spaces - Service Pack

Device Support and Other features and changes - Service Pack

Not that far from Windows Vista Service Pack 2, isn't it? And let's not forget Windows 7 already had a Service Pack.

I really don't care about metro. We'll all get used to it eventually. But really... what a terrible argument... Aside from XP SP2, no service packs ever included major new features.. and the ones in XP SP2 that were included were done so to fix glaring security and usability issues. Do you not understand what what SERVICE is defined as? It's not a feature pack. :rolleyes:

[Dot Matrix]

Not even close. Using his own model t example, the forced inclusion of metro onto desktop environments is akin to putting the brakes in the trunk, and the steering wheel on the roof.

What are you talking about? If that's the case, why don't other operating systems have a start menu? Why doesn't the Mac or iPad have a Windows 9x UI?

The "wheel" is still in the same spot it's always been in. The only thing that's changed is the "dashboard" layout.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Not even close. Using his own model t example, the forced inclusion of metro onto desktop environments is akin to putting the brakes in the trunk, and the steering wheel on the roof.

yeah ... no

What are you talking about? If that's the case, why don't other operating systems have a start menu? Why doesn't the Mac or iPad have a Windows 9x UI?

The "wheel" is still in the same spot it's always been in. The only thing that's changed is the "dashboard" layout.

still using the crappy model T example if anything it's more like removing the wheels and giving it hover capabilities

[Dot Matrix]

still using the crappy model T example if anything it's more like removing the wheels and giving it hover capabilities

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need.... Roads. :cool:

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

Please stick to the topic.

[PGHammer]

So then really we agree, they have ****ed desktop users in their bid to support a wider range of devices under the Windows heading. Im not sure what you are basing Windows not supporting laptops comes from. Desktops/laptops/netbooks/ultrabooks all use the SAME control scheme so they all work just fine under the 'old' system.

Touch is the problem. GUIs are based around what the control mechanism is. So far, Win8 has made inroads like you say for touch devices, it ****s everyone who uses the keyboard and mouse. I just like how initially you denied that it retarded desktop users, now you admit it, call it 'legacy', and say thats the price for progress.

Instead of making the touch UI the overlay, MS in their infinite stupidity, has made the desktop the overlay. This singular **** up is why Win8 won't see its way on to anything but slate devices for me if they don't wise up.

Again, the things we want are so miniscule that only outright stubborness is making this an issue to begin with.

No they did not.

Touchpads had (until Windows 7) been using a mouse-emulation kludge - as opposed to native support. That is an example of bias.

The bias made logical sense when portable PCs were the minority. Now they aren't.

And the issue IS very much stubbornness - and it's ALSO why I compared it directly to the redneck reaction - they didn't see themselves sinking into the minority position, either.

It's the same thinking process behind the angst over multi-platform gaming. I get the reason for the screaming of the niche-end folks with high-end PCs; however, why is the thought of gaming on portable PCs such a problem?

The reason I have problems with such thinking (and especially in IT) is that, by and large, those of us that use computers are far from stupid. We have certainly seen the skew in sales of PC with Windows moving away from desktops and toward portable PCs merely since XP alone. While desktops HAD been the majority of Windows licenses, I doubt that has been the case since Vista went RTM. In other words, desktop PC users aren't the majority any more.

I never said that the DESKTOP was irrelevant, and you won't hear me say it. Not even Microsoft has said it.

If the desktop were irrelevant, why is it that the Consumer Preview has such outstanding compatibility with desktop applications? (I myself have stated - time and time again - that desktop-application backward-compatibility is the best I have seen from a beta version of Windows - if not ANY version of Windows.)

What I'm seeing is that the bias in favor of desktop PCs is itself gone. Desktop PCs are (at the operating system level) treated identically with portables. Neither is favored.

It's not about irrelevance; it's about equality.

[BeerFan]

I actually had an interview where the interviewee was pleased and impressed that I had Windows 8 listed on my resume. Not bad for a "turd OS".

Jus' sayin'. :)

If your resume was involved, then you were the interviewee, and the other person was the interviewer.