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

[Seketh]

If that is the case, MS shouldn't have called it Windows 8 Consumer Preview...

Windows 8 Consumer Preview

[Raa]

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. Isn't that what defines a Service Pack?

While I dearly would love this option, No I wouldn't "just have a service pack". I want Windows 8 for all the other benefits that it would bring to me.

[Seketh]

While I dearly would love this option, No I wouldn't "just have a service pack". I want Windows 8 for all the other benefits that it would bring to me.

Can't edit my first post, so check this one: http://www.neowin.ne...t__p__594853865

The other benefits are Metro. Disable Metro, disable the benefits.

[Active.]

Windows 8 Consumer Preview

What's your point? Developers aren't the sole audience. That was my point. I sincerely doubt that we can still expect huge changes, certainly after the release preview next month. And I'm skeptical that there are groundbreaking changes between the CP and RP version... but I guess we'll soon find out.

[PGHammer]

Troll bait.

Also, Windows 8 is a LOT different under the hood when compared to Windows 7. The Metro interface is just what people are choosing to rail against.

Even if I wanted the old interface, I would still update to 8 for the speed improvements.

While it's *troll bait*, it doesn't stop it from being valid on its face.

Those that are refusing to run the Consumer Preview due to Metro willingly ADMIT that this is - rather easily - the most backward-compatible beta of Windows in several years - if not ever. Hardware AND software.

That is, in fact, one of the major problems WITH Windows 8's Consumer Preview.

There has been a *cottage industry* built on the Internet on picking apart flaws - real and imagined - in pre-alpha, alpha, and beta versions of Windows up until the product arrives on store shelves and comes installed on new PCs.

All that Windows 8 - Developer Preview and Consumer Preview alike - are giving these toiling-away nitpickers is the massive UI change (Metro).

The Consumer Preview - despite Metro - commits the *unconscionable* - to the nitpickers - crime of having practically *perfect* backward compatibility with all the hardware and all the software of Windows 7+SP1.

The usual list of *sins* that a pre-beta or beta of Windows commits - especially compared to the immediate predecessor - is reduced to just one. And it's largely a nitpick.

Worse - in the eyes of that cottage industry - the entire list of *repeat offenses* that have been present in previous beta or pre-release versions (and even some released to manufacturing versions) of Windows are missing.

That's the real offense committed by the Windows 8 Consumer Preview - it is killing another cottage industry.

[goofyinthehead]

To the OP. Some people like Metro and most don't. Change is not always a good thing. I do not have to accept anything about Metro. I don't care about Metro and I think it's the dumbest piece of garbage for the desktop in existence. If I wanted a change that drastic I would be using Linux. The only company to get it right on the desktop, tablet and phone is Apple ( I am not an Apple fan by any means). Subtle changes between all devices but not enough to make you go "wtf?" I can easily go from an iphone to an ipod to a tablet and over to a desktop and not feel that out of sorts with the whole experience.

As far as I'm concerned, Ms is beginning to abandon the desktop in favor of touch devices. Bold attempt but nontheless...a huge fail.

[goofyinthehead]

Uhhhhhhh....?

It's not Metro that's going to take us there. It's IOS. Good God, you would think I own stock in Apple when in fact I own 1 ipod 2nd gen device and nothing more.

[Woelfel]

So having a whole new runtime (WinRT) and APIs is just part of a service pack? Oh aight. -_-

[Seketh]

So having a whole new runtime (WinRT) and APIs is just part of a service pack? Oh aight. -_-

I believe you missed a previous post of mine: http://www.neowin.ne...t__p__594853865

No Metro = No WinRT.

[LightEco]

Most people don't hate "Metro", they just want it blended better with the experience we already have and love. Smaller steps over time allows for better consumer adoption, an easier to learn and use experience, and even better course correction when something isn't working out. With such a giant leap, you risk annoying your users, preventing upgrades, lower adoption by businesses, and even have the chance of jumping way to far in the wrong direction. Look at Vista, such a giant leap caused all sorts of problems. Windows 7 was a smaller step that took the time to refine and build and it turned out great. We do need to move on from the past, but we should probably be doing in it more controlled, less drastic ways. Windows 8 and Metro can make for an outstanding OS if Metro and the existing desktop were just connected and blended a little better. Right now all we have is two totally different OSs fighting for control.

[Seketh]

Most people don't hate "Metro", they just want it blended better with the experience we already have and love. Smaller steps over time allows for better consumer adoption, an easier to learn and use experience, and even better course correction when something isn't working out. With such a giant leap, you risk annoying your users, preventing upgrades, lower adoption by businesses, and even have the chance of jumping way to far in the wrong direction. Look at Vista, such a giant leap caused all sorts of problems. Windows 7 was a smaller step that took the time to refine and build and it turned out great. We do need to move on from the past, but we should probably be doing in it more controlled, less drastic ways. Windows 8 and Metro can make for an outstanding OS if Metro and the existing desktop were just connected and blended a little better. Right now all we have is two totally different OSs fighting for control.

Your point is valid, but how can it blend better? Right now, you can literally close the desktop, and use only Metro. Think of it this way: you want to run Diablo III, you open the legacy desktop application, since the game was designed to use that. You want to use Photoshop, you open the legacy desktop app, since Photoshop was designed for that environment.

I agree that it could blend a little better, but Microsoft can't change the Photoshop UI to look more Metro. Even if the desktop blended better with Metro, I can't see how the design between "legacy" Windows applications that don't run in full-screen and Metro could blend, it'll always be inconsistent, for compatibility sake.

I can however see the taskbar and icons in the legacy desktop being more Metro like in the future, there are improvements that can be made here. Maybe we'll see some changes until Windows 8 goes gold, but right now, I think it's hard to make a full transition to Metro, too many variables and compatibility issues that aren't easy to solve. I see Windows 8 more of a transition OS, but I think we'll still have the legacy desktop on Windows 9. Compability in Windows means unavoidable inconsistency, and that doesn't have a quick fix. Not one that I can think of.

[LightEco]

Your point is valid, but how can it blend better? Right now, you can literally close the desktop, and use only Metro. Think of it this way: you want to run Diablo III, you open the legacy desktop application, since the game was designed to use that. You want to use Photoshop, you open the legacy desktop app, since Photoshop was designed for that environment.

My point was more along the lines of the split between Metro and Desktop is a huge gap, especially on a desktop, laptop, or even an x86 tablet. When I'm in metro, I feel like I'm in a totally different OS. Metro apps can only run in the Start Screen, Desktop Apps can only run on the desktop. There's a metro picture viewer and a desktop picture viewer, a metro browser and a desktop browser, metro mail clients and desktop mail clients, two control panels with different options in each, heck, even a metro skydrive app and a desktop skydrive app. The best part is that none of these apps even talk to each other and on top of that, most of the metro apps don't even come close to matching the functionality of their desktop counterparts. When users are on a desktop or laptop, or even an x86 tablet, there is no reason at all to use apps that must run full screen (or docked) and have less functionality than their desktop counterparts. Why would a desktop user use the metro browser over the desktop browser? One of the biggest complaints about the iPad browser was the lack of flash and some plugins. I couldn't make it through the day if I was restricted to Metro. It just lacks so much functionality that the desktop has come to provide.

So lets say that I plan to spend the vast majority of my time on the desktop. Why if I want to use one of those metro apps, I have to jump back into the start screen? Sure I can dock one at my side, but as soon as I hit start to open another app, its gone again. Why can't I dock a metro app to the side of my second monitor and continue to use the start screen on the main monitor? This is the problem and where this huge gap is killing the experience.

Here's my suggestion - All those wonderful metro apps like photos, music, videos, mail, etc, etc? They have no business being on a desktop. As wonderful as they are on a tablet (even then I don't use them on my samsung slate), they literally bring nothing to the table on a desktop where most users will spend the majority of their time on their desktop. Instead, take the existing desktop apps (picture viewer, media player, live mail, whatever) and update them to have a more metro look and feel, as well as a more touch friendly interface, while still maintaining the functionality and felixibility they offer. So we have the metro look while still utilizing all we love from the desktop.

Now, bring around better multimonitor support and the ability to view on the taskbar any open metro apps. Let me dock the weather app on my left monitor, open the start screen on my center monitor, and have angry birds playing on the right monitor.

Lets say I need to open start and find some system utility or something that is currently displayed on my IE page. I hit start on my keyboard and a smaller start screen (maybe slighty larger than the current win 7 start) opens, and I can type the command while I read it off the webpage, instant search finds it, and i hit enter. No jarring jump into a full screen experience to open one app. If I want to jump into the full start metro screen instead, i just double tap start on my keyboard or I can even click the metro button on the top of the smaller menu. Oh! I forgot what I was looking for. Instead of alt-tab or even completely exiting the start screen, just swipe up or click the lower right corner and the start screen goes semi transparent, so I can quickly see my webpage underneath and what I'm supposed to be looking for.

Of course, these are just some ideas. A full integration would need to balance things a little better and have a lot more to do. The point is that the Start screen is acting like it is its own OS while the desktop is a forgotten relic. In reality the majority of users will most likely just be using the desktop for most, if not all, of their computing needs. We don't need to bring the start button back, we can move on, but we don't need to have such a huge jump. Desktop is here to stay for quite some time. lets at least make the new start screen stop thinking its the only place to be and play nicer with the desktop. As we progress into Windows 9 and above, and as desktop apps become less and less necessary, perhaps then we can begin to trash the desktop completely, but not now, not after we spent the last two versions just getting it right in the first place.

[Scorbing]

Before your bring the inevitable flames, please read everything.

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. Isn't that what defines a Service Pack? Edit: And if you think Service Packs don't add new features, then please, read this: http://technet.micro...036.aspx?ppud=4

Sure, you could argue that Windows 8 could get a facelift pretty much in the same way of Windows Vista to Windows 7. To you I say: Why would you still want incremental updates to a interface that's 16 years old? Isn't it time for change? If Windows 95 didn't force an UI change, then we would still be looking at something similar to Windows 3.1!

You can argue that it's a change for the worse, I argue that it's a change for the best. Truly, the only way to answer that will be in a few years, in which the market will say if Metro was a bad choice. Right now, Metro is here to stay and it's the path Microsoft has chosen for Windows 8. Deal with it.

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. Why won't Microsoft release a Service Pack 2? Well, actually they might. Right now, they're devoting their resources to Windows 8, so if you don't like Metro, stick with Windows 7, no one is forcing you to buy Windows 8. Sure you might have to buy a PC with Windows 8 in it, but no one will force you to use it, if you hate Metro that much, Windows 7 will still be available for purchase, buy a copy.

If Metro truly is a pile of crap, then Windows 9 will change it. Either be it by redesigning it, or by even removing it, Microsoft will eventually have to change it, the market will force them to do that. But if Metro is here to stay in Windows 9 and Windows 10, then your only hope to use the same UI you've been using for 16 years is to keep using Windows 7, and the problem there is you, because if Microsoft doesn't change it, then it's because it became successful and most people actually like it.

Change is difficult to accept. Changing a 16 year old formula is difficult, but touch and tablets are here to stay, and Windows has to adapt. Metro is the solution Microsoft came up with. If it's the best one, that's an endless debate, but the fact is that Metro really is a solution. If it wasn't, there would be better alternatives in the market, and there aren't any. No other OS out there has an interface that works as well with mouse/keyboard and touch. I use both regularly because I have a Tablet PC (convertible), and I lose nothing by alternating between those input methods, and I've lost nothing by changing from Windows 7 to Windows 8 on my Desktop PC. Like it or not, that's the truth, you don't lose anything, you just have different methods to do the same things. Again, if it's for the best or for the worse, that's an endless debate that only time can answer.

One of the biggest complaints about Metro, even by the people that like it, is that you eventually get back into the old desktop. But is it really the "old desktop"? Isn't it more like a "legacy desktop" application? You can close it just like any other application! In the end, it's a "legacy desktop" application in order to maintain compatibilty, because once those third-party applications get by the thousands, many people won't even have to use the "legacy desktop" during their Windows session.

It's a "legacy desktop" to ensure a transition. It isn't "not consistent". It's "no compromise".

Bring on the flames, just try to be rational.

You can't run away from progress and "new" technology my friend. Eventually, you too will have to upgrade to Windows 8 whether you like it or not, when Windows 7 suffers the same fate as Windows XP and Windows 2000 before that and so on. The OS will become obsolete and nobody, including its creator, will support it any longer and therefore forcing you to update to the new and latest OS. Its innevitable. Like the Borg say: "Resistance is futile."

[Vice]

I'm just gonna stick with Windows 7.

[Seketh]

@Resident Fanatic

What I think in what we can both agree, is that there's room for improvement in Metro, and the desktop is here to stay.

But many of the issues you currently have, like the multi-monitor support or not spending anytime at all within Metro, is because this is still a Consumer Preview, and your whole post can be deconstructed because of this. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. There are only a few usable Metro apps, and even those have a big "App Preview" on top.

I understand your complaints, they are valid, but they mostly fall under that fact.

If you do still have many issues with Windows 8 when it goes gold, I for one will likely support them. I like Metro, but I'm not blind.

Until then, you can only hope your critiscism gets heard and Microsoft adresses your complaints until the final version.

You can't run away from progress and "new" technology my friend. Eventually, you too will have to upgrade to Windows 8 whether you like it or not, when Windows 7 suffers the same fate as Windows XP and Windows 2000 before that and so on. The OS will become obsolete and nobody, including its creator, will support it any longer and therefore forcing you to update to the new and latest OS. Its innevitable. Like the Borg say: "Resistance is futile."

Huh, I think you didn't understood my post. That was sort of my point. English is not my first language, so I apologize if it's somehow misleading.

[Scorbing]

@Resident Fanatic

What I think in what we can both agree, is that there's room for improvement in Metro, and the desktop is here to stay.

But many of the issues you currently have, like the multi-monitor support or not spending anytime at all within Metro, is because this is still a Consumer Preview, and your whole post can be deconstructed because of this. It's not an excuse, it's a fact. There are only a few usable Metro apps, and even those have a big "App Preview" on top.

I understand your complaints, they are valid, but they mostly fall under that fact.

If you do still have many issues with Windows 8 when it goes gold, I for one will likely support them. I like Metro, but I'm not blind.

Until then, you can only hope your critiscism gets heard and Microsoft adresses your complaints until the final version.

Huh, I think you didn't understood my post. That was sort of my point. English is not my first language, so I apologize if it's somehow misleading.

I agree with you on the Metro UI. Personally, I hate it. I don't like it.

[Order_66]

Change is difficult to accept. Changing a 16 year old formula is difficult, but touch and tablets are here to stay, and Windows has to adapt

Windows does not have to adapt, there is no need for a touch interface on a machine that doesn't have the hardware to support it, metro will probably be fine on a tablet but not on my gaming machine, there just isn't any need for it at all, it's ugly and just gets in the way.

[PGHammer]

To the OP. Some people like Metro and most don't. Change is not always a good thing. I do not have to accept anything about Metro. I don't care about Metro and I think it's the dumbest piece of garbage for the desktop in existence. If I wanted a change that drastic I would be using Linux. The only company to get it right on the desktop, tablet and phone is Apple ( I am not an Apple fan by any means). Subtle changes between all devices but not enough to make you go "wtf?" I can easily go from an iphone to an ipod to a tablet and over to a desktop and not feel that out of sorts with the whole experience.

As far as I'm concerned, Ms is beginning to abandon the desktop in favor of touch devices. Bold attempt but nontheless...a huge fail.

Yet those supposedly subtle changes that Apple has made break compatibility (especially software) far more than Windows 8 Consumer Preview does with Windows 7 and earlier applications. In other words, the changes in Apple operating systems are more critical than even the Metro UI paradigm is to traditional Windows users. Is the UI consistency far more important that you are perfectly willing to trade backward-compatibility for it?

One of the most amazing things about the Windows 8 Consumer Preview (and something that Apple has far greater issues with) is backward compatibility (especially application compatibility).. The big thing is that Microsoft usually has issues with backward-compatibility (though never to the degree that Apple has since moving whole-hog to Intel CPUs), and this is something that largely is NOT an issue with Windows 8's Consumer Preview.

Here's the real question - which is more important? Backward-compatibility or UI consistency?

[PGHammer]

Windows does not have to adapt, there is no need for a touch interface on a machine that doesn't have the hardware to support it, metro will probably be fine on a tablet but not on my gaming machine, there just isn't any need for it at all, it's ugly and just gets in the way.

Okay - how does it get in the way on your gaming setup?

You state that it gets in the way - what I want to know is *how*.

I do play games on my desktop - Consumer Preview and all; in fact every game that I played on Windows 7+SP1. I play on the Consumer Preview.

Is it more the UI change *outside* the desktop (which, other than the Start menu being gone, hasn't changed one bit from Windows 7) or that you are tied to the Start menu?

[tomasarson]

windows 8 will be the first version of windows since before xp that i won't be pre-ordering. (maybe my opinion will change before it's released)

nothing's really excited me yet. metro is cool and all. not for me though. i know there's more but still.

not everything has to be the same like in an apple world. maybe i sound stupid or whatever. but as a happy windows user for years there's nothing that really makes me go "OMG!" about windows 8.

maybe i am that tied to the start menu. thank god there's going to be a video tutorial for that.

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

Let's stick to the topic and not troll...

[Seketh]

Windows does not have to adapt, there is no need for a touch interface on a machine that doesn't have the hardware to support it, metro will probably be fine on a tablet but not on my gaming machine, there just isn't any need for it at all, it's ugly and just gets in the way.

That's ignoring all the form factors in which Windows can run. But I get your point and that's a whole other discussion: Should Microsoft create a Windows just for touch and maintain a Windows just for desktops? I think PGHammer answered that.

I agree with you on the Metro UI. Personally, I hate it. I don't like it.

Ah sorry, I thought you were a regular user, not a troll.

[PGHammer]

Paid Windows 8 supporters are paid windows 8 supporters.

And I've been pro-8 from the beginning - and I get nothing.

In fact, when the Developer Preview - complete with Metro - was put on the Web, I was a major skeptic largely *because* of the radically-different user interface.

The users were a bigger problem with even the Developer Preview than the regular applications have been.

The Consumer Preview is even more stark when it comes to compatibility. The users are screaming - however, as was the case with the Developer Preview, even traditional applications could care less, as they keep on keeping on.

The transiton from 7 to the Consumer Preview (and eventually to either the Release Preview or the released product) is going to be harder on users unwilling to leave the safety net of Windows 7's UI as opposed to their software OR hardware.

[Argi]

There are a LOT of under the hood improvements in Windows 8 - performance, security, and all that. Metro is just one part of a lot of changes.

[Stoffel]

I've been using win8 since the release of Win8 DP and I have to agree with the OP.

If there were a switch to turn of Metro, lots of people would just turn it off because it is different, and a whole new platform would be wasted.

Metro has lots to offer, both on desktops/laptops and tablets, but you just have to be willing to give it a chance and look at what it is and don't try to make it into Win7 again.

I can't wait for the first week of June!!!

And for the trolls, I'm not paid by MS, I just like technology!

Nice post Seketh