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

[Dashel]

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.

Um, touchpads have always been 'mouse' emulators so my point stands. All conventional devices use the same basic control scheme. The only 'emulation' kludge has been touchpads trying to do 'more' than a mouse (gestures, multi-finger swipe etc). Touchpads still use the basic conception of moving a cursor through space and the use of selector buttons. I thought it was pretty obvious that the touch in question is on-screen based controls which is radically different.

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?

You are right here as it breeds the same disgust. Not because gaming on other platorms is an issue, but because they poison one ecosystem to the benefit of the other. This is quite akin to how MS ****ed us with the XBox. Power users don't want their experience retarded because of simplistic devices like consoles and slates when there is no justifiable reason for 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.)

Here you go again with that BS. Who gives a **** about beta compatibility? Is it really that amazing that Windows will run Windows applications at release? Jesus H Christ.

[BajiRav]

Is it really that amazing that Windows will run Windows applications at release? Jesus H Christ.

Yes :p

[Seketh]

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:

Right. Terrible argument. Ignore all the features introduced in XP with SP1/SP2/SP3 and Vista with SP1 and SP2.

I'm sure Vista SP2 introduced the "Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless" just to fix glaring issues. :rolleyes:

Look, Windows 8 has many improvements. But how many of those improvements are deeply connected to Metro and WinRT? If you guys take out the new UI improvements and everything related to those improvements out of Windows 7, wouldn't you think: "Why did Microsoft release Windows 7? Couldn't they just release an SP3 for Vista?"

We don't even need to take out the UI changes in Windows 7 for people to think that!

Now, imagine a Windows 8 without Metro and all the related features. It's a change that's way less significant than the jump from XP to Vista, and barely as significant as the jump from Vista to Windows 7, and we all know that Windows 7 is a polished version of Vista, primarily made to appease the masses due to all the critiscism of Windows Vista.

That's why I say that people that don't want Metro, want a Service Pack. Keep polishing the same 16 year old formula, and add just a few new features. If you don't see a problem with that argument, you do have an issue with change and innovation.

[bogas04]

^ Although i am not against metro , but what you are saying is that just for sake of change they brought metro?

And yes , i can bet Metro will have it's own benefits once apps land... I see a nice use of IM clients in Metro , using Notifications and 1/3rd screen , further seeing mail/chat etc at lock screen is again a decent feature. Also when you see start screen , you already know if you have new email and stuff like that , without you actually clicking the browser and checking the site. These features are nice... What can be better than seeing the information just when you boot up your PC?

[Seketh]

^ Although i am not against metro , but what you are saying is that just for sake of change they brought metro?

Isn't change the thing that makes the PC evolve?

[PGHammer]

Um, touchpads have always been 'mouse' emulators so my point stands. All conventional devices use the same basic control scheme. The only 'emulation' kludge has been touchpads trying to do 'more' than a mouse (gestures, multi-finger swipe etc). Touchpads still use the basic conception of moving a cursor through space and the use of selector buttons. I thought it was pretty obvious that the touch in question is on-screen based controls which is radically different.

You are right here as it breeds the same disgust. Not because gaming on other platorms is an issue, but because they poison one ecosystem to the benefit of the other. This is quite akin to how MS ****ed us with the XBox. Power users don't want their experience retarded because of simplistic devices like consoles and slates when there is no justifiable reason for it.

Here you go again with that BS. Who gives a **** about beta compatibility? Is it really that amazing that Windows will run Windows applications at release? Jesus H Christ.

It most certainly is that important - to everyone. If an application you depend on doesn't work on the newer version of Windows, why would - or should, for that matter - you upgrade to it?

Backward-compatibility has, in fact, been the traditional bugbear with Windows beta, release-candidate, and even RTM versions - how many applications, games, etc. worked in Vista (or more commonplace, XP) that didn't work in Windows 7? How many Neowinians alone have held on to XP for backward-compatibility reasons? That is, in point of fact, why XP has hung around like an albatross - a dying one - in corporate world.

You sound conflicted. On the one hand, you don't like the Windows 8 UI because it doesn't have the bias in favor of the desktop that you are used to - yet you dismiss backward-compatibility with applications from as far back as XP as irrelevant.

Which is more important? That desktop bias or the backward-compatibility with applications for Windows 7 and earlier?

Because there aren't many (in fact, any) solid WinRT applications out there, backward-compatibility with existing applications (not to mention games and utilities) is huge; for business/corporate/enterprise uses, it's the acid test for a new version of Windows. What has been driving the detractors crazy is that the solid backward-compatibility of the Consumer Preview (let alone the Developer Preview) with the Windows application and game base is unmatched by any beta version of Windows (and even Windows 7 + SP1 falls short here) - and that is despite a UI that is neutral (favoring neither desktop PCs or portables). Basically, your argument that backward-compatibility requires the retention of the bias in favor of desktops is proven to be absolutely without merit.

I get the skepticism (I was quite honestly just as skeptical) and for the same reasons - could a Windows minus the desktop bias that has traditionally been the case retain that backward compatibility that has been the benchmark between success and failure. Surprisingly (from my own experiences) the answer is a resounding YES. True - nobody (and that is particularly true with Linux distributions, not to mention UNIX; Apple has refused to even try) has managed to pull it off (which is exactly why I was skeptical in the first place, and it's also doubtless at the core of the skepticism of others). What the Consumer Preview has done is taken a long-standing implication when it comes to operating systems (or even desktop environments) and thrown it onto the rubbish heap.

It's like Magellan/Drake's circumnavigation proving - once and for all - that the Earth is indeed quite round - there are still some passengers on the Royal Barge on the Egyptian River.

[simplezz]

There's really little in the way of improvements for desktop/laptop users. Certainly nothing that justifies paying for an upgrade. In my opinion, Microsoft should offer Windows 8 as a free update for 7 users. Oh, and the desktop should be a first class citizen, none of this app crap.

[Dot Matrix]

Oh, and the desktop should be a first class citizen, none of this app crap.

The desktop isn't the first class citizen anymore, and most likely never will be again.

[syobon999]

I don't care about Windows 8.

[PGHammer]

There's really little in the way of improvements for desktop/laptop users. Certainly nothing that justifies paying for an upgrade. In my opinion, Microsoft should offer Windows 8 as a free update for 7 users. Oh, and the desktop should be a first class citizen, none of this app crap.

simplezz - you have summed up the argument of the detractors quite (pardon the pun) simply; they want the desktop bias back.

That is why they are so willing to dismiss the strong backward compatibility the Consumer Preview has shown.

Never mind that the Consumer Preview has not merely better backward compatibility than previous betas of Windows, but that it has better backward compatibility than either the RTM of Windows 7 or even Windows 7 + SP1 - they are basically saying that Windows without the desktop bias isn't Windows.

There is worse than skepticism or even FUD - that is Pharonic behavior. (Basically, they are in denial.)

I find myself in a worse position than Pontius Pilate - the Roman governor of Jerusalem forced to preside over the trial of Jesus of Nazareth.

The prosecution's case is weaker than TP (or, as Ron Weasley would say, flimsier than bog rolls). Lest we forget, Pilate himself pointed out that Jesus broke no laws.

The only "law" Windows Consumer Preview has broken is that it is no longer desktop-biased; guess what - the applications don't care.

And I don't have a wash basin (never mind lye soap) to wash my hands of this silliness.

To the detractors, I give the following advice - if you can't get past the lack of desktop bias - stay with Windows 7. It's not going anywhere. (In fact, it will be supported for at least another eight years - until 2020.)

As for myself, I'll be running the Release Preview in a month, and the RTM of Windows 8 when it becomes available.

[DDStriker]

I agree. I remember when I was a kid my dad didn't want to use a mouse. He thought DOS was more productive. Now look. Everyone uses one! People changed for the better. I think Microsoft has this set in their mind that this is the future.

There was a time when that was true until more improvements were made :) perhaps an improvement in this situation is the removal of metro all together :D I think it's really a non-issue though if microsoft try to force this change on people without the ability to disable it (which would be kind of pathetic) then someone is bound to find a way to get rid of it and the people who don't want it will remove it until it matures more

[Dot Matrix]

Sorry guys, but the desktop was kicked from the throne years ago. Time to adapt or die for Microsoft (I know a lot of people would rather Microsoft just curl up and die, if that means giving more of the same on the desktop, but it would be HIGHLY catastrophic if Microsoft died.), but if Microsoft doesn't change, then it's game over for them. The market wants portable devices, and Microsoft can't hold off any longer.

[bogas04]

Isn't change the thing that makes the PC evolve?

That doesn't necessarily mean ANY change leads to evolution. Bringing something new just for sake of change is also not good (i repeat i am not against Metro , but this felt weird if we say MS brought it just for a change)

[Seketh]

That doesn't necessarily mean ANY change leads to evolution. Bringing something new just for sake of change is also not good (i repeat i am not against Metro , but this felt weird if we say MS brought it just for a change)

That's a weird argument, Nothing is done "just for sake of change", there's always a reason underlying change. You seem to have somehow misunderstood my previous post.

The whole point of Metro is to change Windows. Microsoft has to adapt to the new form factors and methods of interacting with the PC, and Metro is an answer to that. Microsoft isn't changing Windows just because they felt like it. There's a reason (multiple reasons actually) for Microsoft to change Windows in order to evolve.

The problem is that many people can't accept that, so they would rather take Metro out of Windows 8 and end up having Windows 7 - 2.0.

[Dashel]

Wow you guys are daft, 'desktop' is a shortened term for the desktop metaphor, not 'physical desktop PCs'. PG, you keep putting word after word down of mind dizzing nothing. Shut up already about compatibility, we get it. Stop the inane metaphors. You have a total boner over the idea that Windows is compatible with Windows (in beta! zomgz) and Win8 touchscreen devices are the future, literally, since they haven't even materialized yet.

Again, NO ONE is asking that it be removed. We just want the tools that allow us desktop centric people to still enjoy our PCs while you create this brave new world.

[Stoffel]

Wow you guys are daft, 'desktop' is a shortened term for the desktop metaphor, not 'physical desktop PCs'. PG, you keep putting word after word down of mind dizzing nothing. Shut up already about compatibility, we get it. Stop the inane metaphors. You have a total boner over the idea that Windows is compatible with Windows (in beta! zomgz) and Win8 touchscreen devices are the future, literally, since they haven't even materialized yet.

Again, NO ONE is asking that it be removed. We just want the tools that allow us desktop centric people to still enjoy our PCs while you create this brave new world.

I still don't get all the b*tching, the desktop is still here for all of us to use. the only thing that changed is that the start menu got a little bigger.

What's the big deal?

[SkyDX]

What I still don't get over all these arguments is why Microsoft doesn't just take the easy and cheap way to satisfy everyone... In my opinion they could just take the current Windows 7 code base and brush it all up security wise and repackage it as "Windows Legacy LTS" or something like that.

They could sell this Legacy LTS next to Windows 8 and 9 and 10 but not in stores just available directly on requesting from Microsoft. They also wouldn't need to advertise it and It would include support till 2020 same as the current EOL date for Windows 7 and get all major security and "mission critical" updates like DirectX 12-13 etc.

That way everybody would be happy and this whole argument wouldn't even exist >.<

And before now someone says "It would butcher Windows 8 sales! Microsoft wants to force everyone to get used to Metro!" Well yeah till 2020 they can't force anyone to use Metro as Windows 7's EOL is not until 2020 like said and if they make it known to "enthusiasts" it wouldn't butcher any or only very little sales. Microsoft would get extra money, the growth of the Metro ecosystem wouldn't be in danger and everyone has what they want but that's just my opinion^^

[PGHammer]

Wow you guys are daft, 'desktop' is a shortened term for the desktop metaphor, not 'physical desktop PCs'. PG, you keep putting word after word down of mind dizzing nothing. Shut up already about compatibility, we get it. Stop the inane metaphors. You have a total boner over the idea that Windows is compatible with Windows (in beta! zomgz) and Win8 touchscreen devices are the future, literally, since they haven't even materialized yet.

Again, NO ONE is asking that it be removed. We just want the tools that allow us desktop centric people to still enjoy our PCs while you create this brave new world.

That is *exactly* what Windows 8 does - the problem with the detractors (notice that I specifically said it was the detractors themselves - the applications are fine) is that they are used to the bias in favor of the desktop.

And while you moan and argue semantics, the portable computer itself USED to be a lighter and less powerful alternative to desktop computers - not a computing platform itself in its own right.

So both are right.

And while YOU aren't arguing that Metro go away, an awful lot of those that agree with you are arguing exactly that position. They want the Windows 8 UI as it is not merely relegated, but killed in the crib - regarding it as some sort of demon, looking to kill their beloved desktop.

[PGHammer]

What I still don't get over all these arguments is why Microsoft doesn't just take the easy and cheap way to satisfy everyone... In my opinion they could just take the current Windows 7 code base and brush it all up security wise and repackage it as "Windows Legacy LTS" or something like that.

They could sell this Legacy LTS next to Windows 8 and 9 and 10 but not in stores just available directly on requesting from Microsoft. They also wouldn't need to advertise it and It would include support till 2020 same as the current EOL date for Windows 7 and get all major security and "mission critical" updates like DirectX 12-13 etc.

That way everybody would be happy and this whole argument wouldn't even exist >.<

And before now someone says "It would butcher Windows 8 sales! Microsoft wants to force everyone to get used to Metro!" Well yeah till 2020 they can't force anyone to use Metro as Windows 7's EOL is not until 2020 like said and if they make it known to "enthusiasts" it wouldn't butcher any or only very little sales. Microsoft would get extra money, the growth of the Metro ecosystem wouldn't be in danger and everyone has what they want but that's just my opinion^^

Windows 7 will still be sold alongside Windows 8 until 2020. Microsoft has said it. Quite a number of us that like Windows 8 - UI and all - just fine have said it. (I myself have said it multiple times.)

However, the most vocal of the detractors (not all of them) are like any set of extremists on ANY issue - unwilling to compromise even the smallest amount.

[Rickkins]

And while YOU aren't arguing that Metro go away, an awful lot of those that agree with you are arguing exactly that position. They want the Windows 8 UI as it is not merely relegated, but killed in the crib - regarding it as some sort of demon, looking to kill their beloved desktop.

In fact, I have no issues with metro for touch screen devices. I'm sure it will be fine on tablets etc. It just doesn't belong on a desktop. That, is the issue.

[PGHammer]

In fact, I have no issues with metro for touch screen devices. I'm sure it will be fine on tablets etc. It just doesn't belong on a desktop. That, is the issue.

And the only reason that you think so is that it creates a position of neutrality (desktop vs. touch).

I take it you've never seen a mobile application OR app OR game that you wished you could run on your desktop (or vice-versa)?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that I have (and in both directions). The current OS biasing/niche-ificaiton does not (except with VERY limited exceptions) permit write-once/run anywhere for applications - not even for Linux distributions. (While some iOS games can run unchanged on OS X Lion or later, that is not true of the majority, and that is quite deliberate on the part of Apple.)

WinRT is the first deliberate attempt to de-bias applications and games, as the only bias inherent in WinRT is due to the API (Windows 7 doesn't support WinRT). Write to WinRT and both WindowsRT *and* Windows 8 can run your application or game. Write to Win32 and Windows 8 and Windows 7 can run your application or game. With WinRT, you can also write applications to Windows Phone (or even port Windows Phone applications to WinRT) with minimal changes. The utterly amazing thing with Windows 8 is, despite the neutrality in terms of API support, the existing crop of applications runs just fine. Windows 7 (in any form) has NOT been able to say that.

I get that this particular change is a biggie - in fact, I have called it the biggest change in Windows from a UI point of view since the launch of Windows 95's first wider beta (specifically, build 224 and Windows 95 beta 2). However, you don't necessarily have to run ANY WinRT applications - in fact, I don't. Every application, game, and utility I run on my Consumer Preview install (except for some WinRT games) is of the traditional sort - for the simple reason that I haven't found a single WinRT application or utility good enough to replace the traditional application or utility I use for that task.

Is the issue the StartScreen - or the lack of a Start menu (of the traditional sort)? The very reason I bring up the latter is that there ARE applications that create the semblance of a Start menu from the StartScreen (Stardock's Start8, for example) - however, apparently that's not enough to suit you.

Surprisingly, the very reason I run the Consumer Preview of Windows 8 as the sole OS on a daily basis is something that the detractors have dismissed. It's not the new UI. It's not even the new application types.

It's the backward-compatibility *and* performance - both of which exceed even Windows 7 + Service Pack 1.

All those "doesn't belong on a desktop" comments are saying is that you (as a user) are perfectly happy with the stratification of operating systems by UI type. Even more telling, you're perfectly willing to give up better performance in existing applications (and on existing hardware) to keep that. Basically, the anti Windows 8 UI arguments are looking a LOT like the arguments of governors of Southern states in favor of the continuation of separate-but-equal - made in 2012 (despite approximately half a century of hard data - in their own states - proving the argument they are trying to present as specious and meritless) - both subjective and silly. (Subjective in the sense that you are ignoring the hard data on backward compatibility of existing applications and hardware - much of which you admit to, but discount because it doesn't buttress your argument/position. Silly in the sense that you are perfectly willing to castigate the same behavior in others whose positions you oppose - then you engage in it yourself in opposition to THEIR position.)

[Rickkins]

And the only reason that you think so is that it creates a position of neutrality (desktop vs. touch).

I don't know what that even means.

[PGHammer]

I don't know what that even means.

What it means is simple - you want the desktop (non-touch) bias (the same as Windows 7 and earlier) - you are assuming (incorrectly) that the lack of a bias in favor of non-touch is the same as a bias toward touch.

If that were the case, the Consumer Preview would not be as compatible with non-touch (traditional) applications as it is.

It's why I said that the Consumer Preview of Windows 8 is actually neutral (favoring neither touch or non-touch); hence *agreeing* with those complaining about it being "neither fish nor fowl".

Computing is actually the only place where "fish" (non-touch computers) can legally become "fowl" (touch-enabled computers) by user conversion/changing of hardware.

If anything, such conversions are becoming both easier and less expensive.

Do you really want addition/changing of hardware features to return to the Bad Old Days?

Take for example touch-enabled monitors. They are already cheaper than their non-touch-enabled predecessors were just five years ago - and Windows 8 hasn't even made it out the door!

Basically, for the same screen size, you pay twice as much for a touch-enabled display vs. a non-touch display of the same feature set otherwise; that premium will only continue to drop - with or without Windows 8.

[Rickkins]

What it means is simple - you want the desktop (non-touch) bias (the same as Windows 7 and earlier) - you are assuming (incorrectly) that the lack of a bias in favor of non-touch is the same as a bias toward touch.

Dude, you're talking gibberish...

[Growled Member]

Wow, people take this stuff a bit too serious.