windows 8 Do you like or hate Windows 8?

[kdw1975]

My hope is that it will fail to such an extent that OSX and Linux will gain market share. Do I think this will happen? Not really.

I have always been one of those guys that put on beta software and was eager to try out new things that usually ended up just causing me a lot of grief. Now that I am 37 and raising, which relies on my computers working, I have a different outlook. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you want to give me more options fine, but don't force it down my throat.

I think I am pretty typical in that I use my computer mainly for gaming and work. I run Creative Suite, Lightroom, and Quark to name a few. I do not use my computer much at all for apps, widgets, social media, or any of that crap. I use my iPhone for that kind of stuff when I am bored and waiting on something or someone.

Now that being said how is Windows 8 going to make me more productive at my job or at gaming? I have to manage thousands of files and I have yet to see any improvement in doing that with Windows 8.

So I am willing to give it a chance, but I am very skeptical. Oh and one more thing. No one in their right mind wants a touchscreen desktop for work or gaming. First it would be a real pain to have to reach out in front of me for hours at a time and it would also block my view. Imagine 8 hours of designing something tedious with your hands stretched out reaching for your 30" monitor!!

[Mohitster]

You don't just love or hate a thing. Sometimes there is a thing between the two. And exactly how I feel for Windows 8. I love all the changes made to explorer, optimizations, ribbon etc (doesn't bother me).....but then I don't really like the non-aero treatment of explorer (really bothers me, I am a graphic designer myself, not that I loved Aero, just that the current non-aero treatment looks ugly) ......and with the new start screen, I currently have mixed feelings as I haven't tried to use it much till now, except the usual personalisation and search stuff, but still I find it rather limiting with respect to functionality and the number of clicks one needs to make a simple task done (bothers me).......

[PGHammer]

Did you even read my post or the one I was quoting? Users are not given a choice whether or not to install Metro, and I think it's fair to say it's Microsoft's way of strong arming people into Metro and its market place. Otherwise we would of had choice, Metro would of been a separate shell or an add-on / replacement for Media Center perhaps. Both sides would be happy, well, except for the whiners.

"You seem to think that the built-in Store will be the only place you can get applications for Windows 8." You should stick to the facts and not make inferences based on your assumptions.

So Microsoft is supposed to just ignore Android's growth on tablets? Is Microsoft supposed to just let Android (and iOS) continue to take marketshare away?

As much as you haven't said so, that is what is happening right now - Android and iOS are in that ultra-low-powered-device space where Microsoft isn't.

No new offering (whether a full-fledged OS or an API for an existing one) can get anywhere without developers. Microsoft is late to the ultra-portable space.

The ONLY way to build up a large installed base - in a hurry - is to piggyback onto the existing base. That is something that Microsoft MUST do to compete with the already-out-there Android and iOS. (And I bet that most of you know that - the issue is that you are so into your *pure* mouse-biased - to the extent that the keyboard is seen as of secondary importance - UI that you really don't care about other means of interaction. Yes; the result is a kludge. However, that shouldn't be anything new to Windows users - Windows has *historically* been somewhat of a kludge; that is how it got the reach it has today. If Windows 8 did NOT try to move into the ultra-portable space, it would basically be *surrendering* to Android and iOS. That has never been Microsoft's thing - they don't surrender when their base is under attack. And - whether you realize it or not - that base IS under attack.)

Also, you don't HAVE to use - or install - so much as ONE WinRT app OR game. So far, I have ONE WinRT app that I run; the AccuWeather.com app (it directly replaced a Win32 ad-supported applet that sat in the TaskTray - AWS Weatherbug - because it uses fewer resources while still keeping me informed). Other than casual games, I have zero other WinRT apps. None. Zero. Nit. The reason why that is, is for the same reason that AWS Weatherbug got booted - they aren't fit replacements for the Win32 applications that they would replace. (Basically, I decided what applications got replaced with WinRT counterparts - not Microsoft. Every user of Windows 8 - as opposed to WindowsRT - has the same choice I do - nobody, not even Microsoft, is saying that you HAVE to choose WinRT just because you're running Windows 8. I'm not that stupid - and I doubt very seriously that any other user of Windows 8 through these Previews is that stupid, either.)

As to why I am quite happily going to stick with Windows 8, despite the lack of WinRT apps that I would use, the answer is quite simple - because of the benefits Windows 8 offers to the Win32 applications that I still run on a daily basis. (Same applies to the Win32 GAMES I play on a daily basis.) Those same benefits - greater stability AND largely improved performance - especially when multitasking - are missing from Windows 7, even with SP1 and all the hotfixes to date applied. In other words, Windows 8 beats Windows 7 for the same reasons that 7 beat Vista, and Vista beat XP - better performance and stability - running the same software and on the same hardware - compared to the predecessor. Period. Any other benefits - including WinRT - are basically icing. If you can't see that, fine. Stick with Windows 7 (which I have suggested to those thaqt can't get their heads around what Windows 8 has to offer). However, leave the name-calling at the door, please.

[PGHammer]

My hope is that it will fail to such an extent that OSX and Linux will gain market share. Do I think this will happen? Not really.

I have always been one of those guys that put on beta software and was eager to try out new things that usually ended up just causing me a lot of grief. Now that I am 37 and raising, which relies on my computers working, I have a different outlook. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you want to give me more options fine, but don't force it down my throat.

I think I am pretty typical in that I use my computer mainly for gaming and work. I run Creative Suite, Lightroom, and Quark to name a few. I do not use my computer much at all for apps, widgets, social media, or any of that crap. I use my iPhone for that kind of stuff when I am bored and waiting on something or someone.

Now that being said how is Windows 8 going to make me more productive at my job or at gaming? I have to manage thousands of files and I have yet to see any improvement in doing that with Windows 8.

So I am willing to give it a chance, but I am very skeptical. Oh and one more thing. No one in their right mind wants a touchscreen desktop for work or gaming. First it would be a real pain to have to reach out in front of me for hours at a time and it would also block my view. Imagine 8 hours of designing something tedious with your hands stretched out reaching for your 30" monitor!!

My hope is that it will fail to such an extent that OSX and Linux will gain market share. Do I think this will happen? Not really.

I have always been one of those guys that put on beta software and was eager to try out new things that usually ended up just causing me a lot of grief. Now that I am 37 and raising, which relies on my computers working, I have a different outlook. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you want to give me more options fine, but don't force it down my throat.

I think I am pretty typical in that I use my computer mainly for gaming and work. I run Creative Suite, Lightroom, and Quark to name a few. I do not use my computer much at all for apps, widgets, social media, or any of that crap. I use my iPhone for that kind of stuff when I am bored and waiting on something or someone.

Now that being said how is Windows 8 going to make me more productive at my job or at gaming? I have to manage thousands of files and I have yet to see any improvement in doing that with Windows 8.

So I am willing to give it a chance, but I am very skeptical. Oh and one more thing. No one in their right mind wants a touchscreen desktop for work or gaming. First it would be a real pain to have to reach out in front of me for hours at a time and it would also block my view. Imagine 8 hours of designing something tedious with your hands stretched out reaching for your 30" monitor!!

Actually, you are not that typical of a non-corporate user; it is corporate/enterprise users that run strictly work applications on their computers (usually due to corporate/enterprise policies). Also, I agree that most WinRT apps (and games) are designed for far smaller displays than even my own 23" display - let alone your 30" display - I don't even have enough DESK for a 30" display). However, there are - or may be in the future - some WinRT games that may be, in fact, suitable for really large-screen gameplay. PopCap Games - prior to their acquisition by EA - showed a custom version of Bejeweled 3 running on an even larger - eighty-five diagonal inches - touch-screen display in their offices. For that reason alone, I dare not say that such is impossible; just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean that it isn't doable. (That's how folks like Bill Gates, and Steve Ballmer, get rich - while the naysayers find themselves with egg-on-the-face.)

However, WinRT is just part of the Windows 8 *cake*; still present - in improved form - are the Win32 APIs that we have known and leveraged through Windows 7. Name Win32 applications and games that did not work as well in Windows 8 compared to any version of Windows 7 - and why. (Remember, I stated that it is improved performance of existing applicaitons and games written for those Win32 APIs that is driving my own upgrade, while you are stating that isn't the case for you. Give me examples - and, more imporantly, the why of it.) I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - I'm simply trying to get beyond the emotion to see if there is really any honest reason for all the hate and anger toward Windows 8 - or is it really all about emotional arguments and FUD.

[MorganX]

Now that being said how is Windows 8 going to make me more productive at my job or at gaming? I have to manage thousands of files and I have yet to see any improvement in doing that with Windows 8.

I can't believe I'm actually here defending the dual personality UI. It will make you more productive as any solid upgrade would. You. Average people, there won't be a learning curve, there will be a bearings curve. And to be honest, I think the inquisitive calls will be more of a nuisance than real problems. Startup, go to your desktop, work as normal. In the preview, the hot corners do not get in the way. My issue, Media Center is leftmost icon and I keep left clicking and launching instead of right clicking. Still used to clicking start menu as I kept it pinned to the start menu and used jump list from there. It does appear to be faster and solid. Built in USB 3.0 support while a service pack update, is still good. Dual Monitor support, etc. It will annoy you if you used the Start Menu a lot, that's really it. And you will get over it, quickly. Just remember the Start Page is the Start Menu. You don't even have to click to get to desktop just Win-D. Having said that, the only thing I really still don't like is the Metro App Bar, Metro apps with context menu at bottom of app on a 27" screen. (If I click on an email, why do I have to travel all the way to the bottom of screen for context sensitive action? Asinine and built for tablets like all current Metro apps). Also, the search is not unified, that is a real drag. If you have lots of files though, it's probably going to be more efficient sorting them, but a drag after that. Metro was not designed to list a lot of ANYTHING.

[PGHammer]

I can't believe I'm actually here defending the dual personality UI. It will make you more productive as any solid upgrade would. You. Average people, there won't be a learning curve, there will be a bearings curve. And to be honest, I think the inquisitive calls will be more of a nuisance than real problems. Startup, go to your desktop, work as normal. In the preview, the hot corners do not get in the way. My issue, Media Center is leftmost icon and I keep left clicking and launching instead of right clicking. Still used to clicking start menu as I kept it pinned to the start menu and used jump list from there. It does appear to be faster and solid. Built in USB 3.0 support while a service pack update, is still good. Dual Monitor support, etc. It will annoy you if you used the Start Menu a lot, that's really it. And you will get over it, quickly. Just remember the Start Page is the Start Menu. You don't even have to click to get to desktop just Win-D. Having said that, the only thing I really still don't like is the Metro App Bar, Metro apps with context menu at bottom of app on a 27" screen. (If I click on an email, why do I have to travel all the way to the bottom of screen for context sensitive action? Asinine and built for tablets like all current Metro apps). Also, the search is not unified, that is a real drag. If you have lots of files though, it's probably going to be more efficient sorting them, but a drag after that. Metro was not designed to list a lot of ANYTHING.

Exactly.

I've never said that some of the criticism of WinRT applications (to date) doesn't have merit - in fact, I've pointed out that the biggest problem is that WinRT *applications* by and large are not scalable to utilize the typical 22" or larger display. The games don't have that issue - it's primarily an application/app issue. (That is also why I've only adopted a grand total of one WinRT app.) Still, that is in fact the reverse of the issue with Win32 applications - most of then don't scale down to notebooks and netbooks - the issue with most Win32 games and portables is, in fact, worse. WinRT apps don't scale up to desktop suitability very well, while Win32 apps don't scale down to portables (and smaller screen sizes) very well. WinRT games, however, don't seem to have the scaling problem that the applications do - which is why WinRT's games will be the big crossover point between Windows 8 and WindowsRT IMHO - apps, not so much.

[code65536]

I think it's hilarious that people are comparing the Desktop->Metro change to the DOS->Windows change.

Going from DOS to Windows wasn't just about getting a GUI. It was also about... well, windows. I.e., MULTITASKING.

Metro goes in the opposite direction. It's an anti-multitasking UI. Especially if you have a large monitor and lots of screen space to work with. You have these Metro apps optimized for a small phone UI that takes up the whole screen. It's a bloody waste!

* Full-screen UI. Want multiple apps to be visible? Your options are very limited and practically useless.

* Task switching is much more difficult with the lack of a taskbar. (Speaking of taskbar, that's unable to launch Metro apps... so what's wrong with keeping an unable-to-launch Metro Start Menu if you're already keeping an incompatible-with-Metro taskbar?)

* Full-screen Start Screen is disruptive to the workflow, unlike a small windowed Start Menu.

* Things that used to take up a small window (like a file picker) now takes up a full screen. Again, very disruptive.

Why do I hate Metro with a fiery passion? One word: multitasking. Rather, the blatant contempt for the concept of multitasking that Metro demonstrates. This is going a step backwards. "But there's still the desktop!" you say. Well, from the way Microsoft has let Metro encroach on the desktop and the way they so forcibly try to shove the desktop to the status of second-class citizen (esp. on ARM systems) makes me worry that this encroachment of Metro will be even worse on Windows 9. And unless there are fundamental changes to Metro to address the fact that it's about as multitasking-friendly as good old DOS 6.22, the direction that Microsoft has taken is, frankly, sickening.

[xWhiplash]

I think it's hilarious that people are comparing the Desktop->Metro change to the DOS->Windows change.

Going from DOS to Windows wasn't just about getting a GUI. It was also about... well, windows. I.e., MULTITASKING.

Metro goes in the opposite direction. It's an anti-multitasking UI. Especially if you have a large monitor and lots of screen space to work with. You have these Metro apps optimized for a small phone UI that takes up the whole screen. It's a bloody waste!

* Full-screen UI. Want multiple apps to be visible? Your options are very limited and practically useless.

* Task switching is much more difficult with the lack of a taskbar. (Speaking of taskbar, that's unable to launch Metro apps... so what's wrong with keeping an unable-to-launch Metro Start Menu if you're already keeping an incompatible-with-Metro taskbar?)

* Full-screen Start Screen is disruptive to the workflow, unlike a small windowed Start Menu.

* Things that used to take up a small window (like a file picker) now takes up a full screen. Again, very disruptive.

Why do I hate Metro with a fiery passion? One word: multitasking. Rather, the blatant contempt for the concept of multitasking that Metro demonstrates. This is going a step backwards. "But there's still the desktop!" you say. Well, from the way Microsoft has let Metro encroach on the desktop and the way they so forcibly try to shove the desktop to the status of second-class citizen (esp. on ARM systems) makes me worry that this encroachment of Metro will be even worse on Windows 9. And unless there are fundamental changes to Metro to address the fact that it's about as multitasking-friendly as good old DOS 6.22, the direction that Microsoft has taken is, frankly, sickening.

I agree with you and this is why I do not want Windows 8 on any of my computers. You know what people are going to tell you though right? "You can still use the desktop!!!!"

[MorganX]

>>I think it's hilarious that people are comparing the Desktop->Metro change to the DOS->Windows change.

Going from DOS to Windows wasn't just about getting a GUI. It was also about... well, windows. I.e., MULTITASKING.<<

Agreed, they are not comparable. But, DOS->Windows was more about the GUI. Total paradigm shift. Multitasking took years. Time slicing came first, lol.

>>Metro goes in the opposite direction. It's an anti-multitasking UI. Especially if you have a large monitor and lots of screen space to work with.<<

Yes and no. It multitasks just fine. But MS believes the majority only need one and 1/3 window at a time. I have to say most of the time they are right. And there is an option for the rest of us, the desktop. In fact, most apps that you would want to have MDI still run in the desktop environment which is why I don't believe the desktop will go away. Somehow MS will make a metro MDI or they will keep the desktop environment as it is.

>>* Full-screen UI. Want multiple apps to be visible? Your options are very limited and practically useless.<<

Same answer as above. And because of this, apps that are better with MDI won't go metro IMO.

>>* Task switching is much more difficult with the lack of a taskbar. (Speaking of taskbar, that's unable to launch Metro apps... so what's wrong with keeping an unable-to-launch Metro Start Menu if you're already keeping an incompatible-with-Metro taskbar?)<<

The taskbar is fine, I just hate the app bar and kinda liked flip3d but I'm sure I'm in the minority, most probably never Win-Tabbed. Alt-Tab and the taskbar still work though. And you can task switch from the desktop to an open metro app. You can also snap a metro app tot he desktop but I don't know why you would want to, lol.

>>* Full-screen Start Screen is disruptive to the workflow, unlike a small windowed Start Menu.<<

I haven't found it to be so. Initially I felt same but once you switch, hardly ever see start menu (Start Page).

>>* Things that used to take up a small window (like a file picker) now takes up a full screen. Again, very disruptive.<<

Seems that way because we're critiquing it. But when you're in the file picker, full screen or not, you're 100% focused on the file picker, so it actually doesn't matter.

>>One word: multitasking. Rather, the blatant contempt for the concept of multitasking that Metro demonstrates. This is going a step backwards. <<

All I can say is I know what you're feeling. I felt the same. You are 100% correct in what you are experiencing and your feelings are justified. All I can tell you is if you grin and bear it, in a week it won't matter. There will be minor nuisances for sure, but it's just not as bad as it initially seems.

[BoDEAN]

Im not a fan of how Windows 8 RTM crams everything MS down your throat. Don't get my wrong, it's an MS operating system, but can you get rid of IE and your default browser, and have chrome? Instead of the calendar app, can you have it point to your Apple Icloud? I am not sure (Just installed it on VM ware on my pc, haven't had time to play with it, just about 90 seconds of messing with it)

[guru]

mostly hate

love

- Speed. everything seems faster, bootup, login, explorer, ie10

- Skydrive integration

- Task Manager

hate : braindead ux - sorry there is no other way to put it.

- disruptive in-your-face startscreen

- startscreen icon organization is not intuitive and difficult -

- endless horizontal scrolling in apps (music) some of which lack even basic navigation menu

- pathetic metro media apps - how do you play local video and music on Metro apps? currently they point to xbox video and music

- switching between Metro apps is a nightmare

[code65536]

All I can say is I know what you're feeling. I felt the same. You are 100% correct in what you are experiencing and your feelings are justified. All I can tell you is if you grin and bear it, in a week it won't matter. There will be minor nuisances for sure, but it's just not as bad as it initially seems.

Though not as usable as Windows 7, Windows 8 is still usable, so yes, I can "grin and bear it"; I've had the DP, and then the RP installed on my test laptop since late last year.

My problem is more of an ideological one. That Metro is utterly multitasking-unfriendly, and that Microsoft seems to be pushing Metro hard and wanting to relegate the desktop to the status of a second-class citizen. It's the combination of these two that get me riled up. If Microsoft did Metro but left the desktop mode as an equal partner, I'd be perfectly happy to upgrade all my systems to Windows 8. But the removal of the Start Menu, the forcing of certain UIs to Metro only, and the outright deprecation of the desktop on ARM sends a clear signal that Microsoft thinks that the desktop is obsolete, and that Metro, with its contemptuous treatment of multitasking, is the future.

Yes, Windows 8 still retains a (mostly-)functional desktop. But what about Windows 9? 10? How much further will Metro encroach on the desktop? If they're willing to kill the Start Menu in Windows 8, what more will they kill in future releases?

(Furthermore, the utterly pathetic support of multitasking in all modern tablet OSes--from iOS to Android to Metro--relegate tablets to the realm of toys, of "consumption" devices. But this wasn't always so. Who here still remembers the first tablet OS? Windows XP Tablet Edition? Those were great tablets, capable of doing "serious" work. So why is Microsoft so fiercely deprecating the desktop on the ARM version? Not everyone uses computers and tablets to watch inane videos of cats on YouTube.)

[Dot Matrix]

Im not a fan of how Windows 8 RTM crams everything MS down your throat. Don't get my wrong, it's an MS operating system, but can you get rid of IE and your default browser, and have chrome? Instead of the calendar app, can you have it point to your Apple Icloud? I am not sure (Just installed it on VM ware on my pc, haven't had time to play with it, just about 90 seconds of messing with it)

No offense, than why are you posting? Yes, you can clear IE. No, the calendar app is tied to your Microsoft ID.

[MorganX]

My problem is more of an ideological one. That Metro is utterly multitasking-unfriendly, and that Microsoft seems to be pushing Metro hard and wanting to relegate the desktop to the status of a second-class citizen. It's the combination of these two that get me riled up. If Microsoft did Metro but left the desktop mode as an equal partner, I'd be perfectly happy to upgrade all my systems to Windows 8. But the removal of the Start Menu, the forcing of certain UIs to Metro only, and the outright deprecation of the desktop on ARM sends a clear signal that Microsoft thinks that the desktop is obsolete, and that Metro, with its contemptuous treatment of multitasking, is the future.

Yes, Windows 8 still retains a (mostly-)functional desktop. But what about Windows 9? 10? How much further will Metro encroach on the desktop? If they're willing to kill the Start Menu in Windows 8, what more will they kill in future releases?

This is my major problem with MS and Windows 8. MS is doing this to further their Tablet and Phone pursuits because they've been so incompetent there for so long they are in a deep hole. And it is users who are being asked to adjust to a tough UI shoehorned onto the desktop. Having said that, the Metro Application Environment does have great potential but it will take a while.

The desktop is just as capable and higher performing in Windows 8, so I don't have a big issue. I would actually like to seem some meaningful Metro apps. There are none yet. Again, the app I'm waiting for in Metro, I use full screen in Windows 7. Some apps are full screen apps. Those that I don't use full screen work just fine, only faster in Windows 8.

Searching is the same, maybe faster, but the results in Metro are a mess. I don't see a way around that because Metro is built for tablets and short lists. So yes, there's a lot of work to be done. But then I see the Surface and I think, well, OK, make this as smooth a transition as possible and produce some good apps and I'm good.

Thing is the best things I've seen so far, Office 2013 and outlook.com don't need Metro, lol. Right now nothing needs metro except tablets and phones. If great apps come, that may change.

However, for me, without Windows 8, I wouldn't want a Surface. There's no way the Explorer UI could move forward on these devices. None.

[Dot Matrix]

how do you play local video and music on Metro apps? currently they point to xbox video and music

Import your media library. Done.

(Furthermore, the utterly pathetic support of multitasking in all modern tablet OSes--from iOS to Android to Metro--relegate tablets to the realm of toys, of "consumption" devices. But this wasn't always so. Who here still remembers the first tablet OS? Windows XP Tablet Edition? Those were great tablets, capable of doing "serious" work. So why is Microsoft so fiercely deprecating the desktop on the ARM version? Not everyone uses computers and tablets to watch inane videos of cats on YouTube.)

Because the market and consumers both rejected them, and with good reason. They were clunky, bulky, heavy, hot, and feature limited. Not finger friendly, poor battery life, ran Windows XP. They were a joke.

[code65536]

Because the market and consumers both rejected them, and with good reason. They were clunky, bulky, heavy, hot, and feature limited. Not finger friendly, poor battery life, ran Windows XP. They were a joke.

The hardware was clunky, yes, but that was years ago, and it had nothing to do with the OS. Nowadays, with 32nm and 22nm CPUs and chipsets that can perform better while consuming less power, that's no longer a problem. As for the market rejecting them, those tablets were never mass-marketed and were never priced for the mass market. But in the niches that they targeted, they did gain quite a bit of traction. As for "consumers", why must an OS cater to the lowest common denominator? Why can't an OS cater to a wider audience? Let the YouTube-watching crowd play with their Metros and Androids and iOSes, but let people who actually want to do real things, like, say, SSH, word process, etc., have proper desktop apps on ARM. Sure, not all software will be ported from x86 to ARM, but why not let developers decide that? I would've been happy to port the software that I write to ARM. If it's security, then require digital signatures. The real reason, of course, is because they want to push Metro and deprecate the desktop. Push their phone/tablet OS while giving long-time PC users a Cupertino-style "f-u"; this is the kind of crap we expect Apple to pull.

[Dot Matrix]

let people who actually want to do real things, like, say, SSH, word process, etc., have proper desktop apps on ARM? Sure, not all software will be ported from x86 to ARM, but why not let developers choose that? I would've been happy to port the software that I write to ARM. If it's security, then require digital signatures. The real reason, of course, is because they want to push Metro and deprecate the desktop. Push their phone/tablet OS while giving long-time PC users a Cupertino-style "f-u"--this is the kind of crap we expect Apple to pull.

First of all, any developer who wants to port their software to ARM is free to do so. That's not a Microsoft issue.

[code65536]

First of all, any developer who wants to port their software to ARM is free to do so. That's not a Microsoft issue.

Um, using what APIs? Yes, it is a MSFT issue, because the only third-party programs allowed on ARM-based Windows are Metro apps (which, BTW, are not native code). So unless the porting also includes "shoehorning a program into a limited UI construct that makes absolutely no sense for the program in question", no, you can't.

[Dot Matrix]

Um, yes, it is, because the only third-party programs allowed on ARM-based Windows are Metro apps (which, BTW, are not native code).

No, they're not. The desktop isn't locked at all in ARM. There is nothing stopping devs from porting their software. - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-desktop-apps-will-run-on-windows-8-on-arm/10756

[code65536]

No, they're not. The desktop isn't locked at all in ARM. There is nothing stopping devs from porting their software. - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-desktop-apps-will-run-on-windows-8-on-arm/10756

Incorrect. Note that the article that you cited is nearly a year old.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/02/no-third-party-code-on-the-windows-on-arm-desktop-means-no-plugins-for-internet-explorer/

http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users-need-browser-choice-too/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431475-92/google-agrees-with-mozillas-windows-rt-browser-concerns/

I'm a developer who has programmed in native code (none of that .NET crap) for Windows for well over a decade. I know what I'm talking about.

[Dot Matrix]

Incorrect. Note that the article that you cited is nearly a year old.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/02/no-third-party-code-on-the-windows-on-arm-desktop-means-no-plugins-for-internet-explorer/

http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users-need-browser-choice-too/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431475-92/google-agrees-with-mozillas-windows-rt-browser-concerns/

I'm a developer who has programmed in native code (none of that .NET crap) for Windows for well over a decade. I know what I'm talking about.

Fine. In that case. Buy an x64 Windows 8 tablet. ARM tablets are geared toward the consumer space to begin with. Consumers don't want desktop apps on a tablet, or Windows 7 tablets would be kind right now, but they're not. They failed big time with consumers. Just because ARM is here, doesn't mean x64 is going away.

[code65536]

Fine. In that case. Buy an x64 Windows 8 tablet. ARM tablets are geared toward the consumer space to begin with. Consumers don't want desktop apps on a tablet, or Windows 7 tablets would be kind right now, but they're not. They failed big time with consumers.

So much for Windows-on-ARM tablets being "no compromise" as Sinofsky promised, eh? But again, why? Why artificially limit my choices when shopping for a tablet? Why artificially limit what is available to other consumers who buy tablets? As a developer, I don't want to say, "This works on Win8 tablets, but not ones with ARM processors. Oh, and I hope you know the difference between the two." Well, the "why" is pretty simple. Microsoft is deprecating the desktop in favor of a consumption-oriented, multitasking-unfriendly UI, all because of a delusion that they can have a one-size-fits-all UI paradigm. Well, sorry, but that just doesn't work.

[Dot Matrix]

So much for Windows-on-ARM tablets being "no compromise" as Sinofsky promised, eh? But again, why? Why artificially limit my choices when shopping for a tablet? Why artificially limit what is available to other consumers who buy tablets? As a developer, I don't want to say, "This works on Win8 tablets, but not ones with ARM processors. Oh, and I hope you know the difference between the two." Well, the "why" is pretty simple. Microsoft is deprecating the desktop in favor of a consumption-oriented, multitasking-unfriendly UI, all because of a delusion that they can have a one-size-fits-all UI paradigm. Well, sorry, but that just doesn't work.

Where? I don't see the problem. I can't run MacOS X apps on an iPad, so why is it important that I waste energy porting an app over the ARM desktop, when it still works perfectly fine on x64 devices? And the desktop isn't going anywhere at all. It might be in for a few changes in Windows 9, but no where, at all, is there anything to say it'll be gone any time soon. And the day it does, too bad so sad. That's the way computing works. Paradigms rise and fall. We don't use the CLI anymore, and you, as a long time user and developer should have known that the same will be said of the 9x desktop.

[VivM]

Fine. In that case. Buy an x64 Windows 8 tablet. ARM tablets are geared toward the consumer space to begin with. Consumers don't want desktop apps on a tablet, or Windows 7 tablets would be kind right now, but they're not. They failed big time with consumers. Just because ARM is here, doesn't mean x64 is going away.

ARM Windows tablets are 3 years too late.

There's already one vendor of ARM tablets out there who has shipped 60-80M units, who has a vibrant third-party software/hardware ecosystem, etc. Why would consumers dump that platform for ARM Windows, which has... an incomplete touch interface, nearly zero third-party software, and hardware that's likely to be less pretty AND more expensive? And why would developers invest in that platform when it has an installed base of zero units?

I absolutely do not understand why MS is totally changing the nature of Windows to catch up to this tablet market. It's like if Ford realized that some people stopped using pickup trucks for commuting and started driving Civics instead, so their response is to make the 'new F-150' a compact sedan. And if people say it's useless for real work... well, the Ford marketing folks point to the trailer hitch and say 'but you can still tow with it'.

There's a reason automakers make multiple sizes of vehicles: because different people have different needs.

And the desktop isn't going anywhere at all. It might be in for a few changes in Windows 9, but no where, at all, is there anything to say it'll be gone any time soon. And the day it does, too bad so sad. That's the way computing works. Paradigms rise and fall. We don't use the CLI anymore, and you, as a long time user and developer should have known that the same will be said of the 9x desktop.

Paradigms rise and fall?

IBM will still sell you a mainframe that's compatible with mid-1960s code! And every few years, they update it, even though I'm sure the market for mainframes has been shrinking for decades. And, it's worth noting, IBM is still in that business, and quite profitably, whereas they dumped the newer PC business years ago.

So keyboard/mouse productivity OSes are a shrinking market. Doesn't mean they're going to die, especially when no one has figured out a better alternative for productivity work. So why can't Microsoft continue to deliver an uncompromised keyboard/mouse OS?

[code65536]

And the desktop isn't going anywhere at all. It might be in for a few changes in Windows 9

Microsoft's actions in W8 have all but signaled that the desktop's days are numbered. And it is now up to users like me to signal to Microsoft that we will not tolerate the direction in which they are headed. And that, in fact, we don't tolerate that the desktop had been relegated to this position of second-class citizen.

That's the way computing works. Paradigms rise and fall.

You speak of this as if we have such a long history of computing paradigms to draw upon. First, paradigms rise as the need arises (Metro would be nice for a phone) and fall when there is no need for it. Microsoft is tamping down on the desktop, not because there's no need for it, but out of a misguided effort to subsume it into a one-size-fits-all paradigm. Both can exist. Both should exist. It is absurd to think that such a wide array of usage models can be properly served by one UI paradigm, yet Microsoft's crusade against the desktop seems to suggest that they don't understand this.

We don't use the CLI anymore, and you, as a long time user and developer should have known that the same will be said of the 9x desktop.

You know, that wheel invention from a long time ago seems to still work pretty well these days. As I said in my original post on the previous page, it all comes down to multitasking. Metro (and iOS and Android) are UI paradigms that are fundamentally unsuitable for multitasking. So unless you want to say that multitasking is dead (well, okay, it might be something rarely used by the "Aunt Millie" users of the world, but, frankly, I am repulsed by the idea that my computing experience might be dictated by the usage patterns of the lowest common denominator), simply assuming that everything must eventually meet their doom one day is nothing more than a blind extrapolation. Yea, the desktop paradigm probably will be replaced one day, but if that replacement is ever to happen because of the genuine superiority of a new paradigm (vs. MSFT shoveling it down our throats), it sure as hell isn't going to be Metro. If MSFT could come up with a UI paradigm that works well for phones/tablets and still offer the same kind of productivity and multitasking of the desktop, rest assured, I'll be the first on that bandwagon. In the absence of this magical "no-compromise" (to borrow one of Sinofsky's oft-used but oft-misleading claims), I bristle at the notion that one is going to replace the other.

Hell, even Apple, which arguably spearheaded this anti-multitasking touch paradigm, have not tried to bring that to their laptops and desktops. Because they at least recognize that one size does not fit all.

Besides, the CLI transition (yes, I'm old enough to have witnessed that one, too) went very differently from this one, the details of which had already been expounded upon at length earlier in the thread.

There's a reason automakers make multiple sizes of vehicles: because different people have different needs.

QFT.