Why didn't Microsoft do this instead?

[drazgoosh]

No.

[McKay]

It's a vicious cycle, people mention that the vast majority will be using desktops, hardly anyone currently uses Windows on a tablet right now because it isnt Tablet friendly, It needs to be tablet friendly before people will use it.

[Dot Matrix]

But the interfaces are already different. How do you bring up the charm bar on a tablet? Slide from the right. How do you bring up the charm bar on a desktop? Move the mouse to the top right or bottom right corner. How do you launch the start screen on a tablet? From the charm bar. How do you launch the start screen on a desktop? Move your mouse to the bottom left corner. Unifying them has certainly not helped consistency. Tablets and desktops but have different learning curves; it would therefore have been better to play to the strengths of each of their input methods rather than compromise the desktop experience.

It's as consistent as it's going to get. You obviously can't gesture with a mouse. But the learning curve is nill. The Charms bar is still the Charms Bar, and the Start Screen is still the Start Screen.

[HawkMan]

But the interfaces are already different. How do you bring up the charm bar on a tablet? Slide from the right. How do you bring up the charm bar on a desktop? Move the mouse to the top right or bottom right corner. How do you launch the start screen on a tablet? From the charm bar. How do you launch the start screen on a desktop? Move your mouse to the bottom left corner. Unifying them has certainly not helped consistency. Tablets and desktops but have different learning curves; it would therefore have been better to play to the strengths of each of their input methods rather than compromise the desktop experience.

The charm bar contains:

1) Start button (not necessary)

2) Settings (duplicate of Control Panel)

3) Devices (haven't even found a use for it yet)

4) Share (could be implemented elsewhere)

5) Search (could be implemented elsewhere)

The charm bar has been shoehorned onto the desktop but simply isn't practical or efficient. The hot-corners are completely unnecessary and there was no need to actually remove the start button, which was something people were already familiar with.

The windows key that's on EVERY keyboard and laptop since forever, or by moving the mouse to the lower left corner and just clicking, if you're keyboard allergic. both options are faster than the tablet option, so I don't see how it's designed for tablets only...

[theyarecomingforyou]

The windows key that's on EVERY keyboard and laptop since forever, or by moving the mouse to the lower left corner and just clicking, if you're keyboard allergic. both options are faster than the tablet option, so I don't see how it's designed for tablets only...

The point I was making - and which you missed - was that tablets and desktops already have different interfaces, therefore it would have been better if Microsoft focused on the respective strengths of each platform. The section you highlighted only reinforces my position, which is that the charm bar is simply unnecessary on the desktop.

The charm bar - which given its redundant functionality was obviously designed for tablets - is cumbersome to use with mouse and keyboard, especially with multi-monitor setups. There was no need to implement it on the desktop at all and even if Microsoft wanted to use it for Metro apps it could have simply been triggered by right-clicking (afterall, there is no right-clicking gesture). Instead Microsoft implemented the hot-corners in order to shoehorn the charm bar functionality into the desktop environment. The biggest problem is that desktop and Metro apps use completely different mouse gestures and that the Metro task switcher classifies the desktop as an app and therefore doesn't individually list running applications, while the desktop doesn't show running Metro apps at all. It's needlessly confusing and doesn't play to the strengths of each platform / input method.

[HawkMan]

It's not unnecessary, it's there for a unified experience and because it's the center for OS wide functions like send to, share and search.

and if you find it's functions redundant. then what are you complaining about, just ignore it's there then. for those that have a windows pad it'll provide a smooth transitional and unified experience. and an easy to reach place from everywhere for OS wide functions

[Dot Matrix]

The charm bar - which given its redundant functionality was obviously designed for tablets - is cumbersome to use with mouse and keyboard, especially with multi-monitor setups. There was no need to implement it on the desktop at all

I disagree, I've been using it on the desktop and with two monitors, and it's been working fine for me. Not to mention, it isn't at all redundant. It meant to be a unifying toolbar for Metro apps - Settings, Search, and Sharing all in one spot. No more mis matched toolbars to dig through anymore.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I disagree, I've been using it on the desktop and with two monitors, and it's been working fine for me. Not to mention, it isn't at all redundant. It meant to be a unifying toolbar for Metro apps - Settings, Search, and Sharing all in one spot. No more mis matched toolbars to dig through anymore.

The charm bar is too easy to accidentally trigger, it's clumsy to use with a mouse and simply isn't necessary on the desktop. It's the same with the Metro task switcher, which wouldn't be needed if the taskbar simply listed Metro apps. Without either of those there wouldn't be any need for the hot-corners at all.

Even if we accept that the charm bar is of benefit to Metro apps it only needs to appear when actually using Metro apps and could be triggered by simply right-clicking, which would mean it wouldn't be accidentally triggered all the time. My point is that the hot-corners - and in particular the charm bar - are an unnecessary imposition on desktop users. Microsoft developed it for tablet users and simply shoehorned it onto the desktop without regard for the inconvenience.

[Dot Matrix]

The charm bar is too easy to accidentally trigger, it's clumsy to use with a mouse and simply isn't necessary on the desktop. It's the same with the Metro task switcher, which wouldn't be needed if the taskbar simply listed Metro apps. Without either of those there wouldn't be any need for the hot-corners at all.

Even if we accept that the charm bar is of benefit to Metro apps it only needs to appear when actually using Metro apps and could be triggered by simply right-clicking, which would mean it wouldn't be accidentally triggered all the time. My point is that the hot-corners - and in particular the charm bar - are an unnecessary imposition on desktop users. Microsoft developed it for tablet users and simply shoehorned it onto the desktop without regard for the inconvenience.

But if the Charms Bar only appeared in Metro apps, how would users access the Control Panel, and Shut Down functions? Charms Bar is a benefit to the desktop too.

[Seketh]

But if the Charms Bar only appeared in Metro apps, how would users access the Control Panel, and Shut Down functions? Charms Bar is a benefit to the desktop too.

Exactly. I've been reading most posts and most of you seem to be stuck in the ideia that Windows should only work with keyboard+mouse. Staying with the Start Menu has that implied, since it is unusable for touch input.

My original concept is nothing but an ideia to ease the transition (or completely eliminate it) between the Start Screen (and the whole Metro environment) and the desktop. Nothing else should be changed, because those changes already made are necessary for touch input.

If my original concept wouldn't work for you, bringing back the Start Menu doesn't work for me. In fact, if Windows 7 with Start Menu wasn't good enought for tablets, why would Windows 8 with the Start Menu be any good?

If you can't accept that the Start Menu has to go, then you really have problems with Windows changing anything. I think that saying that Metro isn't the right way to go is understandable, but by now you guys should do a reality check and understand that the Start Menu is abismal for anything but tradicional desktops and laptops, and we all know those aren't the only two kind of devices in which Windows 8 will work. Laptop convertibles, desktop convertibles, laptops with touch, desktops with touch, convertible tablets, etc. Wanting the Start Menu to stay in Windows is ignoring all those devices, because the Start Menu simply doesn't work with those.

Making it opcional brings up a lot of issues, and adds complexity to Windows. One for example, is that in the future, if an important application only exists in Metro, you'll have too keep alternating between the Start Screen and the Start Menu, and that just isn't functional. That example alone is enough to make the case for the extintion of the Start Menu, at least on the Windows development logic. And again, the Start Menu simply doesn't work with touch, so something had to be done. Like it or not, the solution Microsoft came up with was the Start Screen.

Making it an automatic transition, in which Windows detects if you're using a tablet or a desktop, and enables the Start Menu or Start Screen accordingly, also doesn't work. Why? See the Asus Transformer AIO. Is it a desktop or a tablet? Will Windows run in desktop mode, or in tablet mode? And if you try to make the case that desktops like the Transformer AIO are for a niche market, well, I'll say to you that back in the day a PC with a mouse was also a niche market.

The strange thing is, besides what we have with Windows 8 now, I've never seen a concept of Windows that works with both tablets and touch. All of those concepts that usually show up use the old interface, with the Start button, which is not adequate for touch, clearly negleting this method of input. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

[theyarecomingforyou]

But if the Charms Bar only appeared in Metro apps, how would users access the Control Panel, and Shut Down functions? Charms Bar is a benefit to the desktop too.

I'm not suggesting removing it on tablets, just confining it to Metro apps on the desktop. Therefore you'd access the Control Panel in the same way as before on a desktop. As for shutting down your computer, that was previously done via the start menu but Microsoft failed to migrate that functionality over to the start screen - that would need to change. However, there's no reason you should have to access the charm bar to shut down or restart your computer. It's a bizarre design decision and one that has rightly drawn a lot of criticism, as it was a transparent attempt to try to give the charm bar purpose.

[Dot Matrix]

I'm not suggesting removing it on tablets, just confining it to Metro apps on the desktop. Therefore you'd access the Control Panel in the same way as before on a desktop. As for shutting down your computer, that was previously done via the start menu but Microsoft failed to migrate that functionality over to the start screen - that would need to change. However, there's no reason you should have to access the charm bar to shut down or restart your computer. It's a bizarre design decision and one that has rightly drawn a lot of criticism, as it was a transparent attempt to try to give the charm bar purpose.

Same way as before? So you're saying bring back the Start Menu and force Microsoft to fail yet again? The worst thing Microsoft can do right now is continue down the desktop only path. The UX on tablets and desktops is meant to be UNIFIED, not two separate experiences. One OS, one UX, to rule them all. That's the top most design principal behind Windows 8. Microsoft wants you, the user, to go from one device seamlessly to the next.

Since power is technically a PC setting - I am setting the machine off, or setting the machine to restart - it now appears under the correct category, rather than in "Start". Heck, you don't even NEED to go into the Charms to toggle power options. There are ten billion other ways to shut down or restart your machine.

[dagamer34]

The seperation of Metro from traditional Windows allows them to develop independently from each other. Basically desktop Windows is so tied down to legacy applications that any changes to APIs leads to bug hunting and regression testing to make sure backwards compatibility isn't broken. Metro is a separate environment with it's own rules imposed on developers making sure that it isn't "anything goes" so when Microsoft changes APIs in the future, it doesn't break apps.

[McKay]

Why have a desktop of disorganized icons when you can have something like this, alphabetized and one click away without minimizing everything.

Also, unless the start screen can completely replace the information that my rainmeter gives me, I don't see the reason behind a start menu taking the entire screen for the same information.

Because every tile on my startscreen is there because I've put it there, under several categories. In Windows 7 my startscreen was a long list of apps, I couldn't put them into categories, it was 1 long list or nothing. Also the live tiles I have replace the Gadgets I used to have.

[George P Global Moderator]

The seperation of Metro from traditional Windows allows them to develop independently from each other. Basically desktop Windows is so tied down to legacy applications that any changes to APIs leads to bug hunting and regression testing to make sure backwards compatibility isn't broken. Metro is a separate environment with it's own rules imposed on developers making sure that it isn't "anything goes" so when Microsoft changes APIs in the future, it doesn't break apps.

This is so true, the way Win32 is now they'd be hard pressed to make any drastic changes. People want legacy dropped from Windows, they've said this often, and now with WinRT and Metro that's more or less happening. Yet at the same time we now have another group that doesn't want this to happen or just doesn't like it for xyz reasons. In the end Win32 will be replaced, not next year, not in 5 years but it will happen once the new WinRT APIs/Framework gets more mature. Also as it gets more mature we'll see less and less of these "rules" and "limitations" that we see now in Windows 8, which is basically version 1.0 for WinRT.

[TygrScott]

Still looks like AOL 3.0 to me.

[George P Global Moderator]

Still looks like AOL 3.0 to me.

Until the tiles start filling in with your data then you understand it's nothing like that silly AOL image with it's static images. It seems people just don't want to admit the fact that the live tiles are more than just icons. It seems like doing so would kill their argument about how silly the start screen is and so on.

[flynempire]

No like this.

Tease! Gosh that is sooo nice :D

[remixedcat]

It is! and it's still as touch friendly as android or ios.... who would have trouble with that? looks much more impressive then the childish colored blocks on the start screen. much more sophisticated and smarter.

[George P Global Moderator]

It is! and it's still as touch friendly as android or ios.... who would have trouble with that? looks much more impressive then the childish colored blocks on the start screen. much more sophisticated and smarter.

Until you bring up any desktop apps and find out it's not so touch friendly as you thought it was. So basically, if the live tiles were the same color and not a mix of them you'd find them impressive and not "childish"?

[remixedcat]

Until you bring up any desktop apps and find out it's not so touch friendly as you thought it was. So basically, if the live tiles were the same color and not a mix of them you'd find them impressive and not "childish"?

I would think that users that cannot see the colors can enable them via accessability settings or a quick menu... imagine if windows shipped with high contrast by default it would turn most people away from using it. windows has always used a neutral palette so as to not make people's eyes hurt when looking at the UI. Metro goes against that and the colors might be too bright or vibrant to make them have migraines.

[George P Global Moderator]

I would think that users that cannot see the colors can enable them via accessability settings or a quick menu... imagine if windows shipped with high contrast by default it would turn most people away from using it. windows has always used a neutral palette so as to not make people's eyes hurt when looking at the UI. Metro goes against that and the colors might be too bright or vibrant to make them have migraines.

Maybe, at the end of the day most tiles will have some type of picture/image/logo and they'll update with data, color in those cases doesn't matter. It'd be like the live tile for a game for example, it'd be the title screen, or part of it, for that game so the color you've picked doesn't come into play there at all. Sure the default apps could share the same color, that wouldn't be bad really. Those would be the few though, the rest of the apps can come with any kind of tile the dev can think of.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I'm not suggesting removing it on tablets, just confining it to Metro apps on the desktop. Therefore you'd access the Control Panel in the same way as before on a desktop. As for shutting down your computer, that was previously done via the start menu but Microsoft failed to migrate that functionality over to the start screen - that would need to change. However, there's no reason you should have to access the charm bar to shut down or restart your computer. It's a bizarre design decision and one that has rightly drawn a lot of criticism, as it was a transparent attempt to try to give the charm bar purpose.

Not at all. I see the "shutdown" menu as a legacy concept from an old world where computers were all desktops and the OS didn't get to handle the power button (i.e. before ACPI power buttons). Nowadays, when people aren't using their computers they shut the lid (laptop), hit a power button (tablet/phone), or walk away (desktop). How often do you actually use that menu, and why? If you stop and think about it, you might just be making more work for yourself.

Secondly, Start is for launching apps (or switching to them). It wouldn't make sense to jam a setting in there. So it's in the system-wide settings pane with other similar controls (like brightness, airplane mode, etc).

[contextfree]

The colors are necessary to make it easier to quickly pick out the tile you like. On Windows Phone having one tile color works because there are only 8 tiles on screen, with the larger # of tiles on Windows 8 they wouldn't stand out enough, especially when tiles can display different information at different times.

I agree it would be good if you could personalize the individual tile theme colors though.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Same way as before? So you're saying bring back the Start Menu and force Microsoft to fail yet again? The worst thing Microsoft can do right now is continue down the desktop only path. The UX on tablets and desktops is meant to be UNIFIED, not two separate experiences. One OS, one UX, to rule them all. That's the top most design principal behind Windows 8. Microsoft wants you, the user, to go from one device seamlessly to the next.

You completely misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that Microsoft bring back the Start Menu, as I think the Start screen is a huge improvement. However, Microsoft should have migrated the shut-down controls to either the Start screen or the new right-click shortcut menu. Hiding it behind the charms bar was simply a bad design decision.

Since power is technically a PC setting - I am setting the machine off, or setting the machine to restart - it now appears under the correct category, rather than in "Start". Heck, you don't even NEED to go into the Charms to toggle power options. There are ten billion other ways to shut down or restart your machine.

Secondly, Start is for launching apps (or switching to them). It wouldn't make sense to jam a setting in there. So it's in the system-wide settings pane with other similar controls (like brightness, airplane mode, etc).

Actually, the Start screen already features a user title that allows you to lock the computer or sign out. It would have been incredibly simply - and logical - to include shut-down options there. Heck, you can even shut down your computer from the lock screen.

Not at all. I see the "shutdown" menu as a legacy concept from an old world where computers were all desktops and the OS didn't get to handle the power button (i.e. before ACPI power buttons). Nowadays, when people aren't using their computers they shut the lid (laptop), hit a power button (tablet/phone), or walk away (desktop). How often do you actually use that menu, and why? If you stop and think about it, you might just be making more work for yourself.

I use it all the time. I'm well aware that computers can be shut down by simply pressing the power button on your case but it's usually quicker to simply use the mouse (most of the time I'm already holding the mouse anyway) - not only that but my computer is under my desk and I don't particularly like having to lean down to press it when a simply mouse gesture will suffice. And I guarantee I'm far from the only person that shuts down their computer in that way - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if a majority currently shut down their computer from the start menu.