Isn't Windows 8 the start of something great?

[Noir Angel]

And, even you must admit that many are just saying that Metro is ugly, or I won't be updating, or MS has lost me as a customer, or it murders productivity/gets in my way and not really explaining. Not that any explanation is owed. But, expect subsequent questions asking why if the explanation isn't abundantly clear.

What right do you have to demand those answers from people? We don't have to justify the way we use computers to you.

[Wyn6]

What right do you have to demand those answers from people? We don't have to justify the way we use computers to you.

Allow me to quote myself, Javik. "Not that any explanation is owed. But, expect subsequent questions asking why if the explanation isn't abundantly clear."

I fully acknowledged in the emboldened part that no one owes anyone an explanation. Only that it's reasonable that when someone makes a statement and doesn't support said statement, others will wish to know why.

So, I'm not sure how saying you don't owe anyone an explanation is demanding an explanation. If I'm not mistaken, that would be the exact opposite actually. And, you even quoted the part where I said that.

[trag3dy]

Ah. And, there's the rub. Had you read my previous post that you explicitly stated you did not read, then you would've read that I said, "Obviously, others' mileage may vary..."

I acknowledged that other people's experience may not mirror my own. And, at no point did I attempt to tell someone they were using it wrong. I simply stated that if it WAS that big of a productivity killer, I would stop using it really quick. Again, that's just me.

And, even you must admit that many are just saying that Metro is ugly, or I won't be updating, or MS has lost me as a customer, or it murders productivity/gets in my way and not really explaining. Not that any explanation is owed. But, expect subsequent questions asking why if the explanation isn't abundantly clear.

You're still missing my point entirely. The reasons have been explained you're just being purposefully dense at this point.

[Wyn6]

You're still missing my point entirely. The reasons have been explained you're just being purposefully dense at this point.

Let, me quote myself, Trag. "I also understand that it may be frustrating for you and others to feel as though you've expressed your reasons as clearly and precisely as you possibly can only to have people continue asking you why."

That statement right there shows that I completely understand what you're getting at. But, my MAIN question was, why keep using it if it kills production or gets in the way? That HAS NOT been answered. I know some people depend on their computers for income. And, if they DL'd 8 and then say, man this really obstructs my productivity, does it make sense for them to keep using it? Wouldn't that adversely affect their income?

So, my question isn't really why do you hate it, or feel it's counterproductive, etc. It's, why continue to use it if you feel this way and it IS adversely affecting your productivity?

[Dashel]

He actually explained in a very polite way why some of us who love Metro have a hard time understanding the Metro hatred. We use it daily and not really use it that much differently then we did Win7.

I'll take a rude eagle over a polite ostrich any day of the week. Since Neowin is a diverse community, its apparent that many have a hard time understanding many of the finer points raised because we are not all operating at the same experience level. The idea that the classic Start Menu scares or is unorganizable (another shifting goalpost) by power users is a false claim. You can complain about civility all you want, but for some of us, the reality matters. Help alleviate it by not overgeneralizing every point raised and when pinned down, change the subject (or worse, posit another error based on the first). Suck it down and let me teach you isn't civil, no matter how you whitewash it.

We continue to use it because like it or not, we will be running, deploying, and managing it regardless. We simply don't have a choice, there are no alternatives, the train is out of the station. Its not a fatal wound, more of a series of paper cuts between the fingers. Eventually we'll get new calloses.

Its one thing to argue over preference and philosophy, but over observable functionality? I mean its like we are tasting wine and having a discussion if its too sweet or sour and a bunch of hillbillies stumble up and proclaim, whoo, this stuff gets you drunk!

[PGHammer]

You can only stay the same for so long before the market moves on. Had Microsoft continued with the current Windows 7 UX, eventually Android or even Apple would have overtaken them when they adapt to the new technologies appearing on the market.

Which has, in fact, been pointed out - I pointed out that Honeycomb and Ice Cream Sandwich are a problem already. Android - in and of itself - is a major threat to Windows because they are moving beyond touch to accept and even encourage non-touch input; throw in that Android tablets, with or without life-extending docks, already have more battery life than Windows-based portables. If Microsoft were to continue to ignore that, Android would continue taking marketshare from Windows in the portable space - as it is certainly doing today. Is there, in fact, any reason that Android *itself* can't be ported to x86 and therefore challenge Windows directly? (I know for a certainty that Android 1.x was certainly ported to x86 - I actually ran a VM of it in VirtualBox.) Users like TheLegendOfMart either don't realize that or simply don't care (for whatever reason) - if you truly don't care, say so and move on (or back). I personally (as someone that has been the "family geek" for most of my life - and ALL of my adult life) - can't afford to do that. Sticking my head in the sand is no more an option for me than it is for Microsoft. (I, in fact, dual-boot Windows 8 RP and OS X 10.8 - Mountain Lion - for precisely that reason; I can't afford to ignore Macs.)

[trag3dy]

Let, me quote myself, Trag. "I also understand that it may be frustrating for you and others to feel as though you've expressed your reasons as clearly and precisely as you possibly can only to have people continue asking you why."

That statement right there shows that I completely understand what you're getting at. But, my MAIN question was, why keep using it if it kills production or gets in the way? That HAS NOT been answered. I know some people depend on their computers for income. And, if they DL'd 8 and then say, man this really obstructs my productivity, does it make sense for them to keep using it? Wouldn't that adversely affect their income?

So, my question isn't really why do you hate it, or feel it's counterproductive, etc. It's, why continue to use it if you feel this way and it IS adversely affecting your productivity?

If you buy a new car and you love how it performs, but you just don't like how the door opens, what to do you?

And even then that analogy still doesn't fit exactly. I'm not arguing with the idea in mind that Microsoft conform to what I want, unlike the people who like wind8/metro are arguing that we should see things their way. I'm arguing for OPTIONS. Options that point in fact would make everyone happy and all this nonsense arguing over the start menu disappear.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

If you buy a new car and you love how it performs, but you just don't like how the door opens, what to do you?

you get a better door from a 3rd party *cough*startmenu replacer*cough*

[trag3dy]

you get a better door from a 3rd party *cough*startmenu replacer*cough*

Yeah...no. We've been over why that isn't an option. Or at least why it's not a valid counter argument.

[Wyn6]

We continue to use it because like it or not, we will be running, deploying, and managing it regardless. We simply don't have a choice, there are no alternatives, the train is out of the station.

Bravo! This...

If you buy a new car and you love how it performs, but you just don't like how the door opens, what to do you?

...and this. That's all I was looking for. Fair enough. You have little choice if you plan to do anything with Windows based software or Windows computers in the future as it's most likely moving this way.

Obviously, there are other choices. But, I get what you guys are saying. I won't be asking either one of you again why you continue using it though you don't like it. See? Not hard at all. ;)

[PGHammer]

No, they're forcing a tablet UI upon their desktop users because they're either too cheap to maintain 2 codebases or they just want a slice of the app pie. If one thing's became clear with Windows 8 it's that they don't give a toss about what their users want, it's for their benefit and their benefit only. There's nothing great about the Metro start screen.

Javik, have you seen, or had ANY hand-on time with, the Eee Transformer Prime, especially while docked? I did - and it was a major eye-opener. The Prime, while docked mind you, is lighter by far than even an Ultrabook, has far longer battery life, and includes a full keyboard (built into the dock) and support for mice (including wireless mice, via the built-in USB ports) while *maintaining* the touch-screen support. The Prime runs a quad-core nVifia Tegra CPU and *currently* ships with either Honeycomb (Android 3.0) on the TF201, or Ice Cream Sandwich on the TF300T. Either could certainly run WindowsRT (remember, the Tegra is one of the three ARM CPUs that WindowsRT supports); however, because RT's not out, it's running Android. And the Prime's cost - dock and all - is less than $600. (And yes, that even includes a decent Logitech wireless non-gaming mouse.) That is what is staring Microsoft in the face right now. Two completely separate codebases - in short, you want WinRT to be another niche - like Tablet PC Edition? Windows Mobile? That weird OS that was neither fish nor fowl that ran on the KIN? Need I remind you that all three were massive failures? Or is that exactly it - you see the march of *appware* coming and don't want Microsoft in particular anywhere near it because you WANT Microsoft to fail as a going concern - just as RIM is failing? Ignoring tablets is not an option - because of hardware like the Transformer Prime. Maintaining two completely separate codebases isn't an option either - it is, in fact, something that Microsoft has a proven track record in - all bad. Even if you're ignorant of the first, you certainly should be aware of the second.

[Dashel]

Except the superior tablet code base is trapped on WP8, which is still seperate, dontcha know. Win7 is how you do a tablet (pen) edition right - you simply integrate a control overlay in the same package. Just like they did with Media Center as well. Neither disrupted the vanilla copy.

PG, what cloud do you use?

[PGHammer]

Except the superior tablet code base is trapped on WP8, which is still seperate, dontcha know.

Actually, not. There's more common code between WP8 and WinRT than between RT and Win32. If anything, WP8 is a *subset* of WinRT. What feature is there in WP8 that is not in WinRT?

[Dot Matrix]

Which has, in fact, been pointed out - I pointed out that Honeycomb and Ice Cream Sandwich are a problem already. Android - in and of itself - is a major threat to Windows because they are moving beyond touch to accept and even encourage non-touch input; throw in that Android tablets, with or without life-extending docks, already have more battery life than Windows-based portables. If Microsoft were to continue to ignore that, Android would continue taking marketshare from Windows in the portable space - as it is certainly doing today. Is there, in fact, any reason that Android *itself* can't be ported to x86 and therefore challenge Windows directly? (I know for a certainty that Android 1.x was certainly ported to x86 - I actually ran a VM of it in VirtualBox.) Users like TheLegendOfMart either don't realize that or simply don't care (for whatever reason) - if you truly don't care, say so and move on (or back). I personally (as someone that has been the "family geek" for most of my life - and ALL of my adult life) - can't afford to do that. Sticking my head in the sand is no more an option for me than it is for Microsoft. (I, in fact, dual-boot Windows 8 RP and OS X 10.8 - Mountain Lion - for precisely that reason; I can't afford to ignore Macs.)

I don't think they care because A) they want to use their apps for a little bit longer, then move platforms. Many people here still have the outdated impression that the OS should be there to just launch apps, but the OS has become more than that.

[Dashel]

There's more common code between WP8 and WinRT than between RT and Win32. If anything, WP8 is a *subset* of WinRT. What feature is there in WP8 that is not in WinRT?

Why are you comparing RT and Win32, its exasperating. Apps have to be down ported to WP8 since it can't run WinRT so there must be some difference. I'm sure a resident developer can clarify for us. I certainly can't download and install WP8 on my tablet, so if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[PGHammer]

I don't think they care because A) they want to use their apps for a little bit longer, then move platforms. Many people here still have the outdated impression that the OS should be there to just launch apps, but the OS has become more than that.

That's been the point I have been, in fact, trying to ask from day one - what existing Windows 7 applications (that didn't get mooted by core-OS features) broke? So far - surprisingly - I've had a grand total of one game - TERA Online - break. The only application that EVER broke - Skype - was fixed quickly. In short, no other games broke. (None. I've completed three game betas running entirely on Windows 8, and three others are in progress; these are also entirely on Windows 8. All six betas are for Win32-based games. Two should be passing familiar; one is Diablo III, which is shipping now; the other is Guild Wars 2 - which ships next month.) The very first hoop that the first Windows 8 preview - the Developer Preview - had to clear was the application-compatibility hoop. That is, first and foremost, what a planned successor to an existing OS - and especially a successful OS, such as Windows 7 - SHOULD be judged by. Look at my first series of posts in each Windows 8 Preview Discussion thread. I was just as thrown by the new UI as the critics. That, if anything, had me looking HARDER for things that would break application compatibility. And except for Skype (and THAT took the Release Preview to get it to break), not a single solitary application broke. The utter lack of breakage had me shaking my head - and especially because of the radically-different UI. I had more breakage in the Windows 7 Consumer Preview than in all three Previews of Windows 8 put together. It's why I asked what the heck did Windows 8 get RIGHT that Windows 7 failed in. (I just reinstalled one game - SimCity 3000 Unlimited - that failed in the Windows 7 Consumer Preview (though it DID work in the RTM of 7) just to prove that I wasn't seeing things. It installed off the CD without a problem.) That is, in fact, why I run Windows 8 Release Preview today - it's the best Windows for what I want to do - and, heretical it may sound to some, it's even better at it than Windows 7.

Why are you comparing RT and Win32, its exasperating. Apps have to be down ported to WP8 since it can't run WinRT so there must be some difference. I'm sure a resident developer can clarify for us. I certainly can't download and install WP8 on my tablet, so if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

But the difference is because of features in WinRT that are NOT in WP8 - it's why I called WP8 a subset of WinRT - not the other way around. WinRT itself is a subset of Win32.

[BajiRav]

If you buy a new car and you love how it performs, but you just don't like how the door opens, what to do you?

And even then that analogy still doesn't fit exactly. I'm not arguing with the idea in mind that Microsoft conform to what I want, unlike the people who like wind8/metro are arguing that we should see things their way. I'm arguing for OPTIONS. Options that point in fact would make everyone happy and all this nonsense arguing over the start menu disappear.

Just as you have explained your problems countless times, it has been explained in this forum an equally(!) counteless times (not by me and probably not to you directly) that making Metro optional will kill any potential developer interest in creating metro apps for the platform. This of course is in theory. I don't necessarily think that start menu needed to disappear but when you try to imagine why metro or rather metro apps are important - then any such option will make the tablet side of things D.O.A.

[trag3dy]

Just as you have explained your problems countless times, it has been explained in this forum an equally(!) counteless times (not by me and probably not to you directly) that making Metro optional will kill any potential developer interest in creating metro apps for the platform. This of course is in theory. I don't necessarily think that start menu needed to disappear but when you try to imagine why metro or rather metro apps are important - then any such option will make the tablet side of things D.O.A.

If people aren't interested in using metro then forcing it onto them isn't going to change anything. You guys go on and on about the future but then you say if given the option no one would use it. If that's the case then it's clearly not the future of computing because people aren't opposed to change if the change is good.

That to me says Microsoft isn't so sure about what they are doing and have no faith in their product. That they afraid their product won't stand on it's own merits so they have to force the changes onto people.

Look at Windows 7. It's a perfect example of a change done well and people accept it as it's quickly becoming the most used OS over the entire world. They had faith in their product. Metro... not so much. It's a night and day difference.

[PGHammer]

If people aren't interested in using metro then forcing it onto them isn't going to change anything. You guys go on and on about the future but then you say if given the option no one would use it. If that's the case then it's clearly not the future of computing because people aren't opposed to change if the change is good.

That to me says Microsoft isn't so sure about what they are doing and have no faith in their product. That they afraid their product won't stand on it's own merits so they have to force the changes onto people.

Look at Windows 7. It's a perfect example of a change done well and people accept it as it's quickly becoming the most used OS over the entire world. They had faith in their product. Metro... not so much. It's a night and day difference.

If folks are given the choice of changing how they do things, they wouldn't necessarily change even IF the change was good - if anything, the change to Android (and the creation of WinRT) is one thrust upon the planet by the poor economy. Microsoft was not ready for a sudden downturn economically 9or the resultant move away from expensive (by comparison) notebooks and netbooks to far cheaper tablets and slates. All Android (and Apple) had to do was scale upward what they already had - Microsoft was (to put it bluntly) caught flat-footed. So how do you explain the sudden growth of iOS and Android other than that?

[Josh the Nerd]

If people aren't interested in using metro then forcing it onto them isn't going to change anything. You guys go on and on about the future but then you say if given the option no one would use it. If that's the case then it's clearly not the future of computing because people aren't opposed to change if the change is good.

That to me says Microsoft isn't so sure about what they are doing and have no faith in their product. That they afraid their product won't stand on it's own merits so they have to force the changes onto people.

I don't think disabling the Start screen necessarily means that a customer wouldn't be interested in any Metro apps. For the average customer, I think it'd be less infuriating to hear "This is a Windows 8 computer, so it has a Start screen instead of a Start menu." than "To use my app, you have to disable the Start menu."

[BajiRav]

If people aren't interested in using metro then forcing it onto them isn't going to change anything. You guys go on and on about the future but then you say if given the option no one would use it. If that's the case then it's clearly not the future of computing because people aren't opposed to change if the change is good.

That to me says Microsoft isn't so sure about what they are doing and have no faith in their product. That they afraid their product won't stand on it's own merits so they have to force the changes onto people.

Look at Windows 7. It's a perfect example of a change done well and people accept it as it's quickly becoming the most used OS over the entire world. They had faith in their product. Metro... not so much. It's a night and day difference.

Products always don't stand on their merits. ;) A simple example is the start menu in XP/Vista/7 which was inarguably better than the 9x/2000 start menu but people still clinged onto it for years because they could. If you search for Windows 7 and quicklaunch I think you will find many wanting to have a separate launcher and switcher (i.e. pre-7) thing when in the end, IMHO at least, the Win 7 taskbar is a perfect combination of both. So changes have to be forced at times (for better or worse).

FTR: I don't foolishly think that everything has to be metro - I have said countless times that my only full time Windows 8 box is my home PC and I use 0 metro apps or the start screen (beyond getting to desktop after boot). I don't see the start screen for days (mainly because everything I use is pinned to taskbar) and when I do it's only if 1. I reboot 2. accidental Win keystroke 3. I want check out some new app.

[trag3dy]

If folks are given the choice of changing how they do things, they wouldn't necessarily change even IF the change was good - if anything, the change to Android (and the creation of WinRT) is one thrust upon the planet by the poor economy. Microsoft was not ready for a sudden downturn economically 9or the resultant move away from expensive (by comparison) notebooks and netbooks to far cheaper tablets and slates. All Android (and Apple) had to do was scale upward what they already had - Microsoft was (to put it bluntly) caught flat-footed. So how do you explain the sudden growth of iOS and Android other than that?

Uhm..no? I don't know what any of that has to do with what I said.

Products always don't stand on their merits. ;) A simple example is the start menu in XP/Vista/7 which was inarguably better than the 9x/2000 start menu but people still clinged onto it for years because they could. If you search for Windows 7 and quicklaunch I think you will find many wanting to have a separate launcher and switcher (i.e. pre-7) thing when in the end, IMHO at least, the Win 7 taskbar is a perfect combination of both. So changes have to be forced at times (for better or worse).

FTR: I don't foolishly think that everything has to be metro - I have said countless times that my only full time Windows 8 box is my home PC and I use 0 metro apps or the start screen (beyond getting to desktop after boot). I don't see the start screen for days (mainly because everything I use is pinned to taskbar) and when I do it's only if 1. I reboot 2. accidental Win keystroke 3. I want check out some new app.

And the key point there is? Those options were all there for people to use or not use (albeit hidden), that is the entire point. Give people new options, but don't take away the ones we are used to. If the new options are good people will use them. And at the end of the day Microsoft will have sold more copies of their software then they otherwise would have. Everyone is happy.

I'll go back to the car thing again, since it's easy to understand. When I bought my new car a few years ago as I was finalizing the details on it I had so many options for what I wanted in it. From tires and wheels, what kind of material was on the seats, if I wanted extra floor mats, the audio system, suspension, even extra engine enhancements, and many more I don't even remember.

Now if I had gone in there and the salesman had said "uhm, we have this one basic model that doesn't have the seats you are used to, we made the buttons for your windows invisible because why not, and no other options but it comes in a nice shade of bright green and has this new slidey door thing we're pretty proud of, for the low price of $30000, where do you want to sign?!" I'd have been out of there before he could blink.

The point - more options never hurt anyone.

[dangel]

The point - more options never hurt anyone.

Actually they do - it increases complexity and size/cost. Windows gives you plenty of options to customise it but just like that car manufacturer they're not going to let you change fundamentals of the platform or offer you every darn thing under the sun. Of course you don't have to buy either, but the analogy is unfortunately flawed regardless.

As a dev i'm constantly seeing our app hamstrung by 'well it's always worked that way' or feature creep (put an option in for everything because one guy wanted it) - you end up with an over complex app, technical debt and a great maintenance cost etc etc. I'm not saying your particular option that you want isn't relevant to >you< but the simple fact is you can't please everybody all the time - particularly when it's about UI. On the up side I can't see your use case not being covered by a third party - it's Windows after all and that's always the case. If that doesn't float your boat then stick with 7 and wait to see if they answer your needs with 9.

Often it's not even about what's better - the XP start menu was much better than 2000's but I've lost count of how many systems I've seen where they'd put it back to the Win2k style. Some people will not like UI change - it's a truism for every developer - and sometimes you bite the bullet because you're thinking longer term or about a bigger picture (and perhaps it's about a cross platform ecosystem this time round?). MS will either be proved right or wrong - I'm not convinced by the start screen either but it doesn't bother me enough to take me away from all the other stuff that makes 8 a great OS (for me).

[Albert]

i stopped reading this pile of garbage after "disrespecting the os ...".

[Condere]

I don't think disabling the Start screen necessarily means that a customer wouldn't be interested in any Metro apps. For the average customer, I think it'd be less infuriating to hear "This is a Windows 8 computer, so it has a Start screen instead of a Start menu." than "To use my app, you have to disable the Start menu."

I still think they should put the Start button back, which slides out the Start screen. Instead of the "they took away the Start button and the Start Menu", it could be "look at our new and improved Start Menu which is easily accessible from the Start button. This Start Menu has specially designed applications that run within the Start Menu."