Why Microsoft Refuses to Name the Windows 8 User Interface


Recommended Posts

According to Microsoft, Windows 8 is ?a bold reimagining of Windows, from the chipset to the user experience.? This reimagining, then, brings a completely new user interface to Windows 8, an UI that is a complete departure from any previous versions of Windows. And since the first unveiling of Windows 8 and throughout its public preview releases, this new UI has been referred to, by the community, as the Metro UI because it follows the Microsoft?s design language that was known as the Metro design language. Microsoft itself referred to apps running on the reimagined Windows 8 platform (WinRT) as Metro Style apps. Why, then, isn?t the term ?Metro? ever referred to in the operating system itself? More importantly, why does Microsoft officially refuse to name the new, reimagined, user interface?

According to Paul Thurrott in Windows Weekly podcast episode 274, when asked, Microsoft personnel would gladly call the classic desktop as the Windows 8 desktop, but they would never call the new UI by any particular name. When asked explicitly what the name of the new UI in Windows 8 is, they just called it Windows. So basically, we have the Windows desktop and, simply, Windows, and not desktop and Metro. At first, this seems quite strange because why would there not be an official name to the new UI in Windows 8; I will admit that I was quite confused by this as well. However, given some time to think about this, I am able to understand what Microsoft is trying to get at.

The trick to all this is to approach Windows 8 in a fundamentally different way. That is, we must not think of Windows 8 as having the Metro UI on top of the Windows 7 desktop, but rather, we should approach Windows 8 as having the Metro UI as the primary UI with desktop as the secondary option. Conceptually, Windows 8 is Metro plus desktop, and not the other way around. Technically, Metro is not primary nor secondary because both desktop and Metro is part of explorer.exe. But if we conceptually see the Metro UI as the primary Windows user interface, there is no need to really call it anything but the Windows UI. For instance, we don?t call the UI in Windows 7 the desktop UI or the Aero UI, but, rather, we call simply call it the Windows 7 user interface. This is the same with Windows XP, or Mac OSX. We call OSX?s Aqua user interface by, well, OSX user interface. The same principle applies to Windows 8, if we consider metro to be the primary UI. Metro, then is the Windows 8 UI, and because the desktop is now secondary in Windows 8, the classic Windows UI in Windows 8 is given a name of ?desktop?.

Paul Thurrott does bring up a valid point that term Windows 8 UI is time bound, whereas something like Metro is timeless. That is, when, say, Windows 9 is released, the term Windows 8 UI will make no sense. I completely agree with this argument. I believe the proper name of the Windows 8 UI is Windows UI. In Windows 7 and prior, for example, the tem Windows UI represented what is now the classic desktop. There was no need to call it Windows 7 UI or Windows Vista UI because the UI paradigm was the same in these versions of Windows. Because the UI paradigm is changing in Windows 8, the metro UI in Windows 8 is being referred to as ?Windows 8 UI? rather than simply ?Windows UI? for differentiation. However, I do think that in the future, the new Metro UI will simply be referred to as the Windows UI. I believe in the future, when we hear the term Windows UI, we will think of what is now called Metro and we will refer to the classic UI as the desktop. Similarly, we will soon refer to Metro Style apps as Windows Apps and the traditional Windows apps as Desktop Apps.

Windows 8 is as much a transitional OS as it is a reimagining of Windows. Hence, terms such as Windows 8 UI or Windows 8 Apps are only temporary, which will eventually be replaced by broader terms such as Windows UI and Windows Apps. Metro, or Modern, or whatever they are calling it these days may be still referred to the design language itself, just like Aero or Aqua is.

metro-metro.jpg

Yeah, I think it's silly to give it a name, doubly so for Windows. You name the GUI if there's an option, like in Linux, or to some extent in OSX (you can run X11, and older versions still had older interfaces floating around). But Windows? It's Windows, no matter how the windows look.

I think it's stuck with Metro UI for most people due to it being referred to as such since its birth

Unless they give it an extremely catchy new name, I`ll be calling it Metro, it's better than "The new tiles start screen thing"

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

I think the reason they don't want it named something catchy and memorable is so people don't have such a clear target to associate with their fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the new interface elements. Windows 8 may end up being another Vista, but the Metro (whatever) interface is a big deal for Microsoft, and I think they'd rather have the opportunity to evolve it over time, instead of being forced to rip it out completely in all future versions of Windows. If people see all of Windows 8's problems as being exclusive to this "Metro" thing, if people think of it as a clearly defined and separate part of "Windows", then Microsoft may feel a lot of pressure to remove it in Windows 9. If people just decide to hate Windows 8, they may still be more receptive to a more evolved Metro in Windows 9. That's my theory. I don't think it will affect how people perceive Windows 8 and Metro though.

I've meet many people who have said they hated Vista, and then do something ignorant like get a new computer, look at the Windows 7 desktop, and then ask with deep concern, "Is this thing Vista? I don't want Vista." After explaining what Windows 7 is, and discovering that they didn't even know there was a Windows 7, you really do have to wonder how people end up with such strong opinions based on practically zero personal experience. I think Microsoft's marketing department (such as it is) is desperately trying to avoid another Vista disaster. Not the disaster based on Vista's genuine issues, but the disaster based on out of control FUD.

It's painfully obvious that any modern Windows interface is just plastered on top of classic and can peal off at any second. When an error occurs in Windows 7 you can see Aero revert to Basic or in some cases even all the way back to Classic. User Account Control dialog windows always appear in Basic, rather than Aero. As such these new interfaces never felt like a true integral part of Windows. Even though Microsoft disabled classic in Windows 8 and tried to redirect all calls to the old interface, it's still there.

Aqua on the other hand feels like a truly integral part of OS X; the one can't exist without the other. On OS X you'll never see a window without an Aqua border around it. You won't see the interface fail and revert back to something legacy. Ever. It just isn't possible. Note: I'm not talking about apps that run through some kind of virtualization or whatever.

Rationally I fully understand the concept of Windows 8 where the desktop runs as an app within Metro. It's secondary. Much like how Command Prompt in Windows 7 runs on the desktop and not the other way around. It doesn't change the feeling that Metro seems, once again, like something Microsoft stuck on top of the same old Windows in an effort to hide its true form.

  On 22/08/2012 at 11:04, Nazmus Shakib Khandaker said:
But if we conceptually see the Metro UI as the primary Windows user interface, there is no need to really call it anything but the Windows UI. For instance, we don?t call the UI in Windows 7 the desktop UI or the Aero UI, but, rather, we call simply call it the Windows 7 user interface. This is the same with Windows XP, or Mac OSX. We call OSX?s Aqua user interface by, well, OSX user interface.

I think the author is wrong here. Generally I never hear people talk about the "Windows 7 user interface". People refer to it as "Aero". Same goes with OS X. People don't speak of the "OS X user interface", they call it "Aqua". If I read about the "OS X user interface" or "Windows 7 user interface" it's when someone uses it as a synonym to avoid having "Aqua" / "Aero" multiple times in a row. Or simply when someone doesn't know the name. Even today I still read about "Luna" being the Windows XP theme.

Apple themselves actively used the term "Aqua" to refer to the OS X user interface up to Mac OS X Tiger. After that I haven't seen the name being mentioned on the OS X website.

  On 22/08/2012 at 12:39, .Neo said:
User Account Control dialog windows always appear in Basic, rather than Aero.

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

  On 22/08/2012 at 12:54, Max Norris said:

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

Huh. Sounds more like a design flaw. Why should I as a user care about all of that?!

  On 22/08/2012 at 12:54, Max Norris said:

That's actually by design for security reasons; UAC notifications are handled by a process outside the security bounds of your current desktop, and since DWM is running under your credentials, it can't interact with the UAC prompt. You can tell UAC prompts to run in the context of your own desktop via a local security policy, but that's a security risk as if that's enabled, any process running under your credentials can mess with that UAC prompt.

Yeah I read that excuse before and all I think is: "On OS X you don't see Authentication windows suddenly appear in Platinum or whatever". For me it just confirms that Aero isn't an integral part of Windows to same degree as Aqua is on OS X. Quite frankly it comes across as a design flaw on Microsoft's part.

  On 22/08/2012 at 12:59, CJEric said:
Huh. Sounds more like a design flaw. Why should I as a user care about all of that?!

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:00, Max Norris said:

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

Are you saying Microsoft feel themselves unable to design a system where this behavior is prevented, yet where at the same time the UAC prompt is drawn in the expected visual style of the rest of the system?

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:00, Max Norris said:

Do you want anything running to be able to watch for the UAC prompt and automatically hit the allow button without your permission?

This apparently isn't an issue on OS X despite the fact all Authentication windows are proper Aqua. Let's face it, it just confirms that Aero isn't as baked into Windows Vista/7 as it should have been. The sheer fact the entire mess has to revert back to some legacy protocol for security reasons is just ludicrous.

post-128385-0-15821600-1345641073.png

  On 22/08/2012 at 11:57, firey said:

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

Huh? Then what do you call it on other devices?

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:04, .Neo said:
This apparently isn't an issue on OS X despite the fact all Authentication windows are proper Aqua. Let's face it, it just confirms that Aero isn't as baked into Windows Vista/7 as it should have been.

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:04, CJEric said:
Are you saying Microsoft feel themselves unable to design a system where this behavior is prevented, yet where at the same time the UAC prompt is drawn in the expected visual style of the rest of the system?

I guess both of you are forgetting the fact that not all systems are even DWM capable (Windows has to run on everything, unlike Apple which has a very strict set of hardware to work with), some users (for whatever reason) prefer it off, and on some versions of the OS DWM isn't even wanted. Servers for example. Hence, it's not part of the "core OS", but a seperate process.

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:09, Max Norris said:

I guess both of you are forgetting the fact that not all systems are even DWM capable (Windows has to run on everything, unlike Apple which has a very strict set of hardware to work with), some users (for whatever reason) prefer it off, and on some versions of the OS DWM isn't even wanted. Servers for example. Hence, it's not part of the "core OS", but a seperate process.

I guess you're forgetting starting Windows 8 Microsoft finally addressed this issue by allowing "Aero" to be software rendered instead of hardware rendered only. Apple did the same with Aqua starting day one, all the way back in 2001. Otherwise my 1999 iMac could have never supported OS X to begin with nor run as a guest in VMware Fusion today. I don't recall it being a problem with OS X Server either.

Is this still neowin.net??? How can we be almost 20 comments into the thread and nobody has said "...that's because they are going to call it BOB". There is a part of me somewhere that is a little dissapointed.

For me. I will still be calling it Metro. They are trying really hard to be clever and change everybodies way of thinking which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is that it seems the majority don't really have an idea of the meaning behind what they are doing. Most is unclear and we cannot see how the interface can wholly improve over WIMP.

WIMP has evolved over the years from the original 1.0 with it's tiled interface. Im my mind it's hilarious that everything seems to be going back there. It's like we have come full circle. (And i'm not trolling, i'm making a comparison)

  On 22/08/2012 at 11:57, firey said:

Because some of the people at MS which feel as I do about a desktop, are hoping that by not calling it anything it will go away. "Metro UI? What?? Oh that thing, yea.. we just kinda forget about it."

Won't happen.

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:13, .Neo said:
I guess you're forgetting that with Windows 8 Microsoft finally addressed this issue by allowing "Aero" to be software rendered instead of hardware rendered only.

And yet again, it isn't wanted in every Windows installation. Windows isn't just a desktop OS.

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:13, MarkusDarkus said:

Is this still neowin.net??? How can we be almost 20 comments into the thread and nobody has said "...that's because they are going to call it BOB". There is a part of me somewhere that is a little dissapointed.

Did you see what you did there? :/

  On 22/08/2012 at 13:16, Max Norris said:

And yet again, it isn't wanted in every Windows installation. Windows isn't just a desktop OS.

Windows Server 2012 doesn't allow for Classic anymore either. It utilizes the same (or similar) desktop theme seen in Windows 8. Where does that leave your story? Nowhere.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Someone wrote a script to block 'brainrot' content online using an $8 smart plug by Usama Jawad Original image via Neil Chen Many people use smart plugs nowadays due to the various advantages they offer, including automation, integration with mobile software, increased home security, better energy efficiency, and compatibility with other smart products. However, a smart plug customer has gone a step further by enhancing their hardware in a way that it blocks them from viewing "brainrot" content online, or any website, for that matter. As seen in a popular thread over on Hacker News, a person known as "NWChen" has written a script that connects to the $8 Kasa Smart Wi-Fi Plug Mini and utilizes it to restrict access to websites of your choice. In essence, this plug then acts as a physical switch that you can toggle to visit certain websites. NWChen's main motivation behind this initiative was to avoid brainrot, with examples listed as X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit in their blog post. In terms of technical functionality, the smart plug connects to Wi-Fi (obviously) and hosts a physical switch that can be used to turn it on and off. NWChen's script connects to the smart plug via an API and then polls its state. If it's on, websites of your choice get restricted and you can't open them anymore, until you physically get up and turn off the plug, or remove the website from you blocklist. NWChen has recommended plugging in the hardware far away from you so there is sufficient resistance in turning off the plug. In the thread, many have praised this invention, believing that the nature of this mechanism provides enough hurdles where you'd rather just not visit the problematic websites anymore. However, some have noted that "those without self control cannot be trusted if they hold the switch". Some have also highlighted a problem where a user can simply stop the script's execution without much friction. Overall, it's a fairly interesting setup, even if it's fairly rudimentary in nature. Configuring this physical block with a Kasa smart plug is fairly easy. You can simply download the script from the laptop-brick GitHub project here, install it, get the IP address of your smart plug, and then use it when you're executing the script. You can modify the blocklist using a dedicated file present inside the GitHub project.
    • We'll probably mirror the EU rule, we've done that in many other areas, but if we don't, well we can add this as another reason why Brexit shouldn't have happened. Personally, if I started to get ads in WhatsApp, that would be a big incentive for me to want to switch to an alternative, and I doubt it will be difficult for me to get my contacts to change as well.
    • It reminds me of fossil fuels, as they try to push the price up and renewable energy continues to get better and cheaper, it's putting the squeeze on the fossil fuel industry. In this case, bringing jobs back to modern countries with higher wages would be a big incentive for corporations to remove humans from the workforce and replace them with AI and robotics, and the funny thing is about that, consumers will demand it because they want things cheaper not more expensive, also corporations will be forced to do it if they want to survive against others that go that route. At the end of the day, they didn't pick cheap labour because they wanted to do so, they did so because competition forced companies to do so, bringing jobs back to western countries would make these companies less competitive on the world stage, unless they use a lot more AI and robotics to remove a lot of humans from the workforce. With that said, bringing jobs back to more stable regions and using AI and robotics does have the benefit of reducing the risk of political trade wars and tariffs, but let's forget this idea of jobs coming back home to higher paying wages, that idea is dead in the water with the advancement of AI and robotics, and with humans, it would only end up making a lot more things more expensive.
    • Slave, assistant, companion? I think that line will blur a lot as robotics become more human like that, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of us see them as a friend or even more.
    • It's all about flexibility, we've designed a world around humans, so having robots that can work in human like environments with the same flexibility we have, offers a lot of advantages in many areas. With that said, for specific tasks, there are better ways than human like robots, but it really depends on what task you want to do. Also, we should remember, even thought we can build human like robots, they can be built so they are stronger, faster and cheaper than we can work, so even thought that likely not as fast or as cheap as automation, it's certainly a lot more flexible and far cheaper than humans.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Miguel Batista earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dedicated
      moojay67 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      urbanmopdubai1 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Jim Dugan earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      Johnny Mrkvička earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      654
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      230
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      220
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      151
    5. 5
      Xenon
      145
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!