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

[Order_66]

Put it this way, did Windows 95 give you the option to turn off the "new" Start Menu?

Absolutely, just hide the taskbar, no more start menu.

Unlike the current offering of windows 8, 95 was actually far more user friendly when it comes to the default desktop experience, which is really sad if you think about it.

[BajiRav]

Baji, right-clicking in a Metro app brings up its contextual menu, there is no exit option I'm aware of (because that isn't how Metro apps want to work).

Partially true. I forgot that you can't do that with the app in focus but if you right click a thumbnail in task switched, you can close from there.

[Dot Matrix]

Absolutely, just hide the taskbar, no more start menu.

Unlike the current offering of windows 8, 95 was actually far more user friendly when it comes to the default desktop experience, which is really sad if you think about it.

Doesn't count. The code for Shell32 and by extension, the taskbar and Start Menu still loaded into memory, whether you had it hidden or not. There was no tick mark or option to turn off Shell32.

[Stoffel]

Unlike the current offering of windows 8, 95 was actually far more user friendly when it comes to the default desktop experience, which is really sad if you think about it.

That's just your opinion, others might feel different about that.

[Dashel]

Partially true. I forgot that you can't do that with the app in focus but if you right click a thumbnail in task switched, you can close from there.

I'm familiar with that. Which confirms my point that the most direct and painless way is a touch swipe and not a mouse click.

[Order_66]

Doesn't count. The code for Shell32 and by extension, the taskbar and Start Menu still loaded into memory, whether you had it hidden or not. There was no tick mark or option to turn off Shell32.

Of course it counts, my argument was that you had to deal with metro because it's there when you first boot 8, you currently can't get rid of it without some heavy tweaking or third party help, with 95 all you had to do is a simple hide and the start menu is gone, it doesn't matter if it's still in memory or not, all that matters is that you can get it out of your way with minimal effort and don't have to see it anymore if you don't want to, unlike metro.

[Som]

Of course it counts, my argument was that you had to deal with metro because it's there when you first boot 8, you currently can't get rid of it without some heavy tweaking or third party help, with 95 all you had to do is a simple hide and the start menu is gone, it doesn't matter if it's still in memory or not, all that matters is that you can get it out of your way with minimal effort and don't have to see it anymore if you don't want to, unlike metro.

agreed ... again ... but this argument is going in circles ... again .... still don't understand the hate Dot Matrix and Dashel have for those of us (and i'd say its approx 50%) who don't think metro is good for desktops... relax you didn't make it and its not going away unfortunately, so you can use it all you want. hopefully some clever person will figure out how to disable the metro start screen from windows 8, guess we'll wait and see

[Damian]

Let's say Metro in Windows 8 was optional. One click of a checkbox and no more Metro. What would you have then? A few updates, fixes and enhancements.

I rather use an improved version of Windows 7.

Windows 7 + all the new features and improvements from Windows 8 but without Metro. And call that Windows 8.

Something like going from OS X Leopard to Snow Leopard. Same UI but with huge improvements. Don't try to fix something that isn't broken.

And if you truly hate Metro, then stick with Windows 7. Because that's what you get if you take Metro out of Windows 8, a Windows 7 Service Pack 2.

Let's be honest, Microsoft would never release an Service Pack for Windows 7 with the complete list of features/improvements from Windows 8.

I think Metro should be installed only if Windows can detect touch hardware (tablets, touchscreen pcs, etc..) or by manually clicking a checkbox while installing Windows. And keep everything like the Windows 7 UI on desktops.

- Desktops: Start menu instead of start screen.

- Tablets: Start screen instead of start menu.

You can keep both camps happy this way. (desktop and tablet users)

[Som]

I think Metro should be installed only if Windows can detect touch hardware (tablets, touchscreen pcs, etc..) or by manually clicking a checkbox while installing Windows. And keep everything like the Windows 7 UI on desktops.

- Desktops: Start menu instead of start screen.

- Tablets: Start screen instead of start menu.

You can keep both camps happy this way. (desktop and tablet users)

if only this would happen...

[Dot Matrix]

Let's be honest, Microsoft would never release an Service Pack for Windows 7 with the complete list of features/improvements from Windows 8.

I think Metro should be installed only if Windows can detect touch hardware (tablets, touchscreen pcs, etc..) or by manually clicking a checkbox while installing Windows. And keep everything like the Windows 7 UI on desktops.

- Desktops: Start menu instead of start screen.

- Tablets: Start screen instead of start menu.

You can keep both camps happy this way. (desktop and tablet users)

What would that accomplish? Microsoft wants three screens and a cloud, meaning unity. Having an outdated 9x UI isn't going to accomplish that, and desktop users are missing out on a good deal of interactivity.

[Dot Matrix]

Of course it counts, my argument was that you had to deal with metro because it's there when you first boot 8, you currently can't get rid of it without some heavy tweaking or third party help, with 95 all you had to do is a simple hide and the start menu is gone, it doesn't matter if it's still in memory or not, all that matters is that you can get it out of your way with minimal effort and don't have to see it anymore if you don't want to, unlike metro.

Of course it's there at boot, it's the place to "Start", after all. It's a hub for everything on your computer, desktop included. The Start Screen is more than a launcher, it is what the OS is all about.

It shouldn't take much to realize that Microsoft is trying to break out of the dull, static, dated UI of Windows past, and to that its users have to do the same. Windows 8 = Windows 2.0.

[PGHammer]

You don't. A legacy app will never be touch optimized without a rewrite. Win8 does little to solve that problem and only underlines their want to jumpstart their new app store that will.

And around in circles we go. The ramifications of that point that you want to shuffle around is the glaring issue.

You're right, I can't possibly have used, understood, and dismissed it as a distraction and burden to how I like to do things (like how the task bar screws with the charms bar).

Sorry, I fell asleep somewhere between your ramblings on segregation and Pakistan. Yawn. Cause touch support is such a great analogy to discrimination. I'm sure touch devices hate having the hoses turned on them too right? Please. MS makes device specific customizations, even in Win8, so they are still treated seperate but equal (supposedly). For your metaphor to hold true, Win8 is the Black Panthers taking power and finally getting the reparations they've been looking for.

The hoses have indeed been turned on the touch-device users from the beginning - why else does the SAMSUNG Series 7 slate require a special overlay for Windows 7 (which is what it ships with by default)?

If the New Black Panther Party were about *peaceful* protest - not violent methodologies - your analogy would be, in fact, spot-on. If anything, Windows 8 is more about the SCLC/Rosa Parks/the late Dr. King/the late Malcolm X - none of whom used violent means - and they actually HAVE, by and large, gotten the mission done DESPITE their non-use of violence.

And your admission that you want the bias back the way it has been (pre-8) is exactly why I would seriously suggest you stick with Windows 7.

[Rickkins]

What would that accomplish? Microsoft wants three screens and a cloud, meaning unity.

Bwahahahahahaha.....you really believe that nonsense, don't ya...??

Pay attention here: The only thing ms wants is money. They don't give a sheet about anything else. That's why when win8 flops, and it most certainly will, win9 will revert to a normal desktop, at least for those who want it.

[Dot Matrix]

Bwahahahahahaha.....you really believe that nonsense, don't ya...??

Pay attention here: The only thing ms wants is money. They don't give a sheet about anything else. That's why when win8 flops, and it most certainly will, win9 will revert to a normal desktop, at least for those who want it.

Revert? I didn't know Windows 8 was taking it away...

[BajiRav]

Bwahahahahahaha.....you really believe that nonsense, don't ya...??

Pay attention here: The only thing ms wants is money. They don't give a sheet about anything else. That's why when win8 flops, and it most certainly will, win9 will revert to a normal desktop, at least for those who want it.

Uh..true MS wants money so what's new? Why do you think they make Windows? :huh:

On the other hand, I use Windows 7 (screen1), Windows Phone(screen2), Xbox(screen3+cloud) and Skydrive etc. (Cloud) - The only money Microsoft gets from me is for Xbox Live and I can stop that at any time I want. What will I lose? All Xbox value added services. ;)

[Som]

Of course it's there at boot, it's the place to "Start", after all. It's a hub for everything on your computer, desktop included. The Start Screen is more than a launcher, it is what the OS is all about.

It shouldn't take much to realize that Microsoft is trying to break out of the dull, static, dated UI of Windows past, and to that its users have to do the same. Windows 8 = Windows 2.0.

surely using your own logic it should be windows 3.0....

from 1 to 3 would be windows 1.0

from 95 to 7 would be windows 2.0

and then 8 and metro would be 3

just sayin ha :rofl:

you can't argue though that the older interface has done a lot for computers over the last 17 years... and if it ain't broke then why fix it for the sake of change...

[Noir Angel]

I run entirely applications that weren't designed with Metro in mind - in fact, other than some WinRT games, none of the applications or games I run today was designed with Metro in mind. (Yes - you read that correctly.)

That is, in fact, why backward-compatibility is as critical as it is.

I run Nero 11 (which was no more designed with backward-compatibility than Nero 10). Nero 11 runs on the Consumer Preview just fine.

The real issue that most of you are whinging about is that things aren't the same as they were in Windows 7.

No, the issue that I am *whinging* about as you so nicely put it (Props for the condescension btw it really makes your point look far more apposite) is that Metro is a confused and cluttered mess.

[Stoffel]

surely using your own logic it should be windows 3.0....

from 1 to 3 would be windows 1.0

from 95 to 7 would be windows 2.0

and then 8 and metro would be 3

just sayin ha :rofl:

you can't argue though that the older interface has done a lot for computers over the last 17 years... and if it ain't broke then why fix it for the sake of change...

For some people it might seem like they are changing things just for the sake of change, but I believe MS has a clear plan with Metro.

They've been talking about the 3 screens and the cloud for years now. And finally they are moving to it with Metro.

Metro is not the Holy Grail, but Ms has stated time and again that they are not planning on getting rid of the Desktop. If that was the plan would they have made so many improvements on it?

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

Metro is not the Holy Grail, but Ms has stated time and again that they are not planning on getting rid of the Desktop.

They simply can't, regardless of how much they might want to. And not with the release of Windows 9 either, like some people here seem to think. Personally, I would have liked them to start anew with an OS called Microsoft Metro and simply keep Windows around for legacy purposes, but that possibly wasn't an option for them in light of the competition in the tablet space and the need to leverage their existing user base and the strength of the Windows brand (although nowadays I'm a little unsure of it in the consumer space).

[Som]

Metro is not the Holy Grail, but Ms has stated time and again that they are not planning on getting rid of the Desktop. If that was the plan would they have made so many improvements on it?

ya, funny you should mention that, i actually would be happier if they had gone full metro and removed the desktop all together... it's this hybrid mess thats annoying me to be honest...

[Rickkins]

This may be of some interest to those who prattle on about desktops dying out....

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2179318/lenovos-soaring-profits-money-flogging-boxes

CHINESE PC MAKER Lenovo has posted bumper financial results with profits increasing by 60 per cent, showing that the PC business isn't dying after all.

Just hours after Dell announced its profits had fallen by 33 per cent, Lenovo reported good financial results. The firm's fiscal fourth quarter sales amounted to $7.5bn, a rise of 54 per cent from the same period a year previously while profits rose 60 per cent to $68m.

(you can read more at the link above...)

[PGHammer]

This may be of some interest to those who prattle on about desktops dying out....

http://www.theinquir...-flogging-boxes

CHINESE PC MAKER Lenovo has posted bumper financial results with profits increasing by 60 per cent, showing that the PC business isn't dying after all.

Just hours after Dell announced its profits had fallen by 33 per cent, Lenovo reported good financial results. The firm's fiscal fourth quarter sales amounted to $7.5bn, a rise of 54 per cent from the same period a year previously while profits rose 60 per cent to $68m.

(you can read more at the link above...)

All *that* means is that Lenovo has better margins (especially outside the US like in Asia, where Lenovo and the Acer Group mix it up, and both Dell and HP are notorious for being nearly MIA) - in the same earnings call, Hewlett-Packard (NTSE - HPQ) not only reported disappointing sales, but announced 27,000 layoffs.

Basically, Asia (and China in particular) is saving Lenovo's bacon, and the lack of presence in China is costing Dell and HP. Even Lenovo reports shrinking sales in both EMEA and the Americas.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

CHINESE PC MAKER Lenovo has posted bumper financial results with profits increasing by 60 per cent, showing that the PC business isn't dying after all.

Lenovo who last financial year launched their Thinkpad and Ideapad tablets?

[PGHammer]

Lenovo who last financial year launched their Thinkpad and Ideapad tablets?

Also, notice that both ThinkPad and IdeaPad are Tegra-based tablets running Android (and ICS in the ThinkPad's case).

A future high-end IdeaPad will ship with Windows 8 (that was leaked by Engadget and Neowin).

There are also ThinkPad convertibles (high-end Eee Transformer Prime types) that run Windows 7 (now, but will run 8 when it RTMs) - the ThinkPad x220t.

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&current-category-id=329576204C9E42289967E79E0E7C9A2D&menu-id=products

[syobon999]

windows 7 with sp2 will be too stable and good enough to make me change to windows 8... sorry microsoft, not now.