win8 Here's What Windows 8 Would Look Like Without Metro

[TheLegendOfMart]

Please. This is such a lousy argument. If you have invested lots of monies in Windows then you are forced to use whatever you have now. You can stay with Windows 7 as long as you want. All your existing stuff will continue to work.

Bored of apologists.

My point is if you want to keep up with hardware and software in the future and don't want to use Metro means you have to either go to Linux or get a Mac, which means your existing software collection will be incompatible.

That's completely ignoring the fact that eventually Windows 7 will become obsolete, just like games/apps don't work on XP eventually Windows 7 will be phased out.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

He's considering switching to OS X.

At home I'm already on OS X, have been for a few years now. But it's getting close to upgrade time, so it'll either continue to be OS X or Windows 7. ;)

[Kelxin]

I think people are just going to start recognizing the trend from Microsoft and get tired of it.

3.0 - Stability issues, major headaches for admins

3.11 - Stable much better for admins

95 - Completely new UI - Stability issues, major headaches for admins

98 - Stabler - better for admins

ME - Nightmare for everyone

XP - Small issues at the start, extremely stable once SP1 came out due to the NT Kernel transition

Vista - Nightmare for business admins or advanced users - people that "just surfed the web" didn't have many problems

7 - Excellent OS out the door, getting even better with SP's

8 - Has been highly criticized since October even forcing Microsoft to release a statement -> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx

and from what I've been reading on here and my own first hand experiences, there are tons of stability and random error issues that did NOT occur in Windows 7 during Beta / RC, so don't even try to pull the "its a beta card" crap.

[BajiRav]

I think people are just going to start recognizing the trend from Microsoft and get tired of it.

3.0 - Stability issues, major headaches for admins

3.11 - Stable much better for admins

95 - Completely new UI - Stability issues, major headaches for admins

98 - Stabler - better for admins

ME - Nightmare for everyone

XP - Small issues at the start, extremely stable once SP1 came out due to the NT Kernel transition

Vista - Nightmare for business admins or advanced users - people that "just surfed the web" didn't have many problems

7 - Excellent OS out the door, getting even better with SP's

8 - Has been highly criticized since October even forcing Microsoft to release a statement -> http://blogs.msdn.co...art-screen.aspx

and from what I've been reading on here and my own first hand experiences, there are tons of stability and random error issues that did NOT occur in Windows 7 during Beta / RC, so don't even try to pull the "its a beta card" crap.

98 was nowhere near stable until 98SE came out :laugh:

XP wasn't good until SP2. Pre-SP2 it was just a malware honeypot.

Vista as an OS wasn't bad and post SP1 it was as good as 7 on my system.

7: When I installed 7 RTM on my system, boot time and general usage perf. was pretty much same as Vista. :) 7 was highly criticized for removing quicklaunch and labels and classic-start-menu etc.

[LegendaryRamzi]

I think you misunderstand what "under the hood" means.

I'm not even going to touch the ridiculously off the mark analogy.

I honestly want to understand. What else of "under the hood" do you mean.

I think my analogy was spot on... When they made the desktop they put DOS on windows as an application, and in windows 8 they put the desktop as an application in Metro.

[Kyang]

For everyone who wants Windows 8 without Metro this is pretty much the best solution:

I thought the best solution was Win8 with the classic shell thing. Didn't that have an update that let users boot directly to the desktop? That way the user gets all the lower level enhancements of Win8, but jumps directly to the desktop, where things like pinning apps to the taskbar lets them avoid most of the Metro.

[.Neo]

I thought the best solution was Win8 with the classic shell thing. Didn't that have an update that let users boot directly to the desktop? That way the user gets all the lower level enhancements of Win8, but jumps directly to the desktop, where things like pinning apps to the taskbar lets them avoid most of the Metro.

The sheer thought of Metro still lurking around the system, albeit hidden from view, might proof to be too much for some.

[abysal]

So basically as much as people hate Metro, it does indeed look much better

This is all very subjective; the actual aesthetics of an OS that is. Functionality is a different story.

This video demonstrates well what windows with metro does welll; that is the explorer ribbon; lots of options, even though it me be too cluttered for some people. And live tiles on the metro screen, along with big sized icon tiles of your apps (Although that?s what the desktop is for imo), the task manager initially looks very good, however some additional views are gone. On the flip side, windows without metro; i.e. "classic shell" start menu is more functional, searching is better, not to mention it doesn?t take up the full screen. Tthe network connectivity balloon is also better, doesn't take up 1/5th of the screen, there's no need for it.

I wouldn't say either of them had to be mutually exclusive.

I'm just hoping a pro/enterprise version won't have the Metro start screen.

It would be nice if MS, just said: "hey business guys! we're just kidding with all this metro stuff for you. Here, take Windows 8 Business instead, with all that nonsense turned off" :p

If Microsoft listened to people, XP will be still on sale.

I think you're twisting peoples desire to stay with XP because it works, for an imaginary desire in not wanting to embrace Windows Vista / Windows 7 because they had some goofy UI elements;

In other words, you?re trying to draw the same parallel as in the case of the current move from windows 7 to Windows 8; which has many nice benefits, but people see the UI as being genuinely goofy? lol.

[George P Global Moderator]

I get the blowback from some, but really this is just the first stage of a shift for the OS as a whole. When they start to better merge the "desktop" with the start screen and metro apps together, probably in Windows 9, then I bet most of these "issues" will be gone. Throughout the lifetime of Windows everytime MS makes some sort of big UI change there's this group that down right hates it. That's just the way it is, they know it, and this time, like the other times as well, they're doing what they want and changing it.

[BajiRav]

I think you're twisting peoples desire to stay with XP because it works, for an imaginary desire in not wanting to embrace Windows Vista / Windows 7 because they had some goofy UI elements;

In other words, you?re trying to draw the same parallel as in the case of the current move from windows 7 to Windows 8; which has many nice benefits, but people see the UI as being genuinely goofy? lol.

I have no idea what you are trying to say there.. :wacko:

[Dot Matrix]

Ok, I admit that they aren't "forcing me" to use Windows 8 and Metro. What I meant to say is that if I wanted to upgrade my OS to Windows 8 then I am stuck with Metro, and my whole original point was that it would have been nice if they had left the choice there rather than removing it.

You're also right about it being Microsoft's OS, they can do what they want. I'm thinking from a business perspective though, and given the obvious divide between people and Metro, I was just thinking that it would have made better business sense to allow people to choose.

Fragmentation is a bad thing, right? Android has shown as much. Surely by removing the choice Microsoft are increasing the level of fragmentation that already occurs? And let's not forget how stubborn Windows XP has been when it comes to retirement. Making this move with Windows 8, are they trying to make Windows 7 have a similar retirement process?

It was no different to users who upgrade from Win3.1 to 95 or whatever, they were also "forced" into using the Start Menu. And the drama we have today was also seen back then. But now no one wants to let go of it, even though it is outdated, messy, and also inferior to what the Start Screen delivers.

Win7 is also supported until 2020. But with the way things are changing with tablets and phones, I doubt we will still be using Windows 7 at that point. Who know what machines will look like then. For all we know Transformers will have taken over like desktop PCs have today.

[Kelxin]

Actually, people flocked to Win95, because it was the only supported OS for many of the ways to get into this awesome new thing called the "internet" through AOL or Netscape. They didn't complain that much about the start menu, but they did complain a ton about the crashes ... lol

[George P Global Moderator]

Actually, people flocked to Win95, because it was the only supported OS for many of the ways to get into this awesome new thing called the "internet" through AOL or Netscape. They didn't complain that much about the start menu, but they did complain a ton about the crashes ... lol

The majority probably didn't complain but there was a group that didn't like explorer and wanted to use program manager still. Plus there was that whole thing about "wut? you have to click start to shutdown?? lolwut?" You know how it goes. Even though the first Win95 beta, or maybe early alpha, had two buttons down there, start and a 2nd one for shutdown as well from what I remember.

[Dashel]

Wow, another video that's high in redundancy and sparse on useful information or demonstration . You're two for two.

[Nazmus Shakib Khandaker]

You could have gotten Internet with Windows 3.1. Win95 was not required; heck IE didn't even come with Win95 initially. Also IE5 (yes the fifth version) was released for Windows 3.1.

[Ryoken]

The majority probably didn't complain but there was a group that didn't like explorer and wanted to use program manager still. Plus there was that whole thing about "wut? you have to click start to shutdown?? lolwut?" You know how it goes. Even though the first Win95 beta, or maybe early alpha, had two buttons down there, start and a 2nd one for shutdown as well from what I remember.

If I remember right, you could setup Windows 95 to have a program manager like 311.. but it's been years since I've checked, so I could be mistaken..

But regardless, Metro unlike the 3.11->95 isn't the same kind of improvement..

Metro, without the "Legacy desktop support" kills off true multitasking, as when you switch between apps, the other one(s) get suspended. It's no more efficient that a properly managed start menu, and takes up far more space, and by that I mean the whole screen.

As for the people that just say don't upgrade.. your right.. never complain about anything. Don't like what a company is doing, go stay in the past.. Don't like your gov't, move. But for gods sake, don't dare voice your disapproval.

[Julius Caro]

Okay, so this thread is for those of you that haven't had a chance to try and turn off Metro in Windows 8 Developer Preview. Well, basically, in Windows 8 Developer Preview, it was possible to completely turn off Metro in. What you got was basically a faster and snappier version of Windows 7 with a refined Aero Glass UI.

This video compares what changed when Metro was turned off.

Note: this hack is no longer possible with current releases of Windows 8, sorry.

Okay, so this thread is for those of you that haven't had a chance to try and turn off Metro in Windows 8 Developer Preview. Well, basically, in Windows 8 Developer Preview, it was possible to completely turn off Metro in. What you got was basically a faster and snappier version of Windows 7 with a refined Aero Glass UI.

This video compares what changed when Metro was turned off.

Note: this hack is no longer possible with current releases of Windows 8, sorry.

is this video complete trolling? it's basically windows 7 haha

[nub]

Metro IS the "under the hood" improvement. The desktop is the legacy part.

Legacy is necessary and Microsoft is doing an impressive job to support legacy software since forever, but somewhere they have to draw the line.

If you prefer DOS, you cannot expect Microsoft to keep building versions of windows that boot into DOS automatically. It makes no sense.

If you enjoy DOS, the windows desktop, the old startmenu and stuff like that that's OK, but you cannot expect Microsoft to keep investing in this.

This kills innovation.

You don't know anything about OS design do you?

[Colin McGregor]

No it really isn't as you don't get any of the "under the hood" improvements that are brought to Windows 8.

Getting sick of people saying "just stick with Windows 7 then"

"just stick with windows 7" is ALOT less annoying then the metro whiners

[Dot Matrix]

As for the people that just say don't upgrade.. your right.. never complain about anything. Don't like what a company is doing, go stay in the past.. Don't like your gov't, move. But for gods sake, don't dare voice your disapproval.

There's a fine line between "Metro sux. Lolz." and "I know things need to change, but I feel that Microsoft could be doings things differnetly, here's why...".

[~Johnny]

The majority probably didn't complain but there was a group that didn't like explorer and wanted to use program manager still. Plus there was that whole thing about "wut? you have to click start to shutdown?? lolwut?" You know how it goes. Even though the first Win95 beta, or maybe early alpha, had two buttons down there, start and a 2nd one for shutdown as well from what I remember.

I thought they didn't complain because most of them didn't have the internet and thus they weren't on it spending all their evenings moaning about it or reading about other people moaning about it and jading their impressions of it, and just assumed this is how things are going to work from now on and missed out on most of the negative opinion :p

[Som]

It was no different to users who upgrade from Win3.1 to 95 or whatever, they were also "forced" into using the Start Menu. And the drama we have today was also seen back then. But now no one wants to let go of it, even though it is outdated, messy, and also inferior to what the Start Screen delivers.

you made that up btw .... again .... windows 95 was well received...

Sorry, i still can't get used to it, i'm trying cause I have to but if I didn't, I wouldn't.

And I have to cause I repair computers, phone support will be a bitch

I have it on 2 out of 3 of my personal computers but I don't see myself putting it on any office computer, for two reasons, it will reduce productivity and no one likes it anyways..

[abysal]

There's a fine line between "Metro sux. Lolz." and "I know things need to change, but I feel that Microsoft could be doings things differnetly, here's why...".

You're right again on this one, except when we do site the inadequacies of the current CP Win8, we get the no one is forcing you to upgrade, or just stay with windows 7 Ha! you guys are funny. Or a blatant superiority complex of; Windows 8 is just better for "X" reason. However there is more then one way to skin a fish :D

[Wyn6]

I'm firmly in the, "Metro hasn't affected my productivity and I actually like it and can see the potential," camp.

But, I do understand that there will be people who don't like it. I like the look of the various Aston Martins. Others may not. I like chocolate cake, but have several cousins and a sister-in-law that don't. Although, weirdly, they like red velvet which is dyed chocolate.

All of that is subjective and comes down to personal preference, eye of the beholder, one man's garbage, and all that. What I have yet to understand is the whole, "The Start Screen kills my productivity," argument. Now, don't get me wrong, I completely understand that we all use our computers differently be that productivity-wise, or leisurely.

Providing we all are using the same definition of kills when it comes to how the Start Screen affects work on the PC, I'm trying to figure out is how it prevents people from doing what they do. Or, how it significantly slows you down.

For example, I'd like to see a scenario on what your normal usage in any given day was in 7 and how exactly that's changed in 8. This can be a whole day's list or just a short list of activities performed.

Here's a sample of a few uses for me in 7 vs 8:

Windows 7 -

1. Turn on monitor (my computer stays on 24/7)

2. Open internet explorer

3. Open up Pidgin

4. Open Bit Torrent

5. Open Final Draft

6. Open Sony Vegas (haven't reinstalled Avid)

7. Read through news, tech blogs, forums

8. Read/Write scripts

9. Chat with my associate on the direction of certain films

10. Download/Upload torrents

11. Visual Studio to check some things for my brother's apps

12. Do some editing on a couple film projects

13. Convert some video into other formats

Some of this is done while listening to music on Zune, except where I need to listen to sound inside another program.

Windows 8 -

All the above the exact same way except... I don't open Pidgin anymore I use Metro Messenger. I also use IE Metro more than IE desktop (takes up less memory and you can Share from it). I stay on the desktop when I need to and always have something snapped, usually Tweetro.

The Start Screen has now become infinitely more useful to me. Things I use to have multiple websites open for, I don't need to do that now resulting in fewer tabs being open.

When I do need to search for something, I use the Search Charm if I'm inside another app/program then switch back to what I was doing via the switcher, or win + tab or alt+tab. Example: If I need to look up a word while writing, I pull up Charms>Search>Type word>Select Dictionary.com. This gets my definition and then I jump back to where I was. Seriously, takes like 3 or 4 seconds.

So, for all intents and purposes, I use 8 just like I did 7 with nary a hiccup. Seems exactly the same except the Start Screen enhances things for me and saves time in some respects.

Oh yeah. Some of this is done while listening to music in the Metro music player. I love Snap View of this thing, though it's a bit finicky with current Zune library.

[Nazmus Shakib Khandaker]

is this video complete trolling? it's basically windows 7 haha

I am not trolling, sir. it IS Windows 8 Developer Preview. Please do your research.