win8 Is it just me or those Metro apps really sucks so bad?

[DeadEndAccount]

I've been using Windows 8 for a couple months now, the last time I opened a Metro app was the first week. I just go directly into Desktop mode and it suddenly becomes a pretty nice operating system.

I second that. I have been giving the Enterprise RTM evaluation a go and to be perfectly frank I've ignored Metro apps and gone straight to the desktop as well - for me the only thing that has changed is the start menu is now a start page on which you can pin your favour applications to.

[+unabatedshagie Subscriber¹]

I've been using Windows 8 for a couple months now, the last time I opened a Metro app was the first week. I just go directly into Desktop mode and it suddenly becomes a pretty nice operating system.

Same here, every week or two I pop into the store and download a couple of free apps if there are any that take my fancy but I usually end up un-installing them after a few minutes as most aren't very good.

Also get annoyed with the way modern ui apps work in general so even if I did find a keeper app I'd probably not use it much.

[grayscale]

I just install Metro apps that I think will have a potential to be good. That way, I can keep track of the updates :D

[Dot Matrix]

I just install Metro apps that I think will have a potential to be good. That way, I can keep track of the updates :D

The only Metro apps I have running are Calender, Weather, OneNote, Evernote, MetroTwit, Quick Note, Wikipedia, Newegg, Fresh Paint, and Sports. Only ones worth a damn right now. Calender, is especially important to me.

[grayscale]

The only Metro apps I have running are Calender, Weather, OneNote, Evernote, MetroTwit, Quick Note, Wikipedia, Newegg, Fresh Paint, and Sports. Only ones worth a damn right now. Calender, is especially important to me.

Yeah, the Calendar app because of the toast notifications is very useful on my end as well. I use ;to-dos; as well (I never got used to pinning a sticky note on the desktop so a live tile works good). And of course, I'm fanboy-ing on TrackSeries right now. :p

[remixedcat]

why couldn't they just make a music app with the media management UI of desktop Zune and just full screen metro it? Instead it's like xbox UI which might work for games or movies, but not music.

[xendrome]

Your

You'r

You are

Their

There

They're

Potatoes

Tomatoes.

You now what I mean.

you're not you'r

^know not now.... ::snicker::

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .] If I want to play an MP3 the last thing I want is for the Music app to take over the entire screen for what is essentially a background process - I then either have to snap it to the side or task-switch out of it. [. . .]

I may be misunderstanding here, so I apologise if I am: Isn't "task-switching out of" the Music app the same concept in this new experience as the old experience? In this new experience, the app is on one's screen only when one needs to control it, and one uses the task switcher to select a different app, once they are done controlling it. In the old experience, the music app is on one's screen when one needs to control it, and one minimises it and/or selects a different app from the Task Bar, once they are done controlling it. In both scenarios, the Music app doesn't have to be on the screen when the user doesn't need to control it, but it has to be on the screen for certain features to be executed (and in the times it doesn't have to be on the screen?e.g. there is a keyboard button to skip the playing track?the new experience works in the same way).

The only difference I see is that the new experience is more of a joy to use, especially as it's fullscreen. But it being fullscreen shouldn't matter because the reason one has it up on the screen is to control the app.

I'm struggling to understand your problem with this, as that is how I see it, but I understand that I could just be mistaken about what you mean.

[Calum Veteran]

Is that a bad assumption?

[. . .]

In this day and age, probably. People are expecting the new Music app to work like that because that's how Zune and Windows Media Player worked, but they're forgetting that this is an entirely new app, and the main reason for its existence is for the music streaming service. Just like Spotify?that plays the music the user has stored on their hard drive, if they wish it to, but it pushes the music streaming service first and foremost because that is the main reason for Spotify. Likewise, that is the main reason for this new Microsoft music service and the apps that complement the service.

[grayscale]

I may be misunderstanding here, so I apologise if I am: Isn't "task-switching out of" the Music app the same concept in this new experience as the old experience? In this new experience, the app is on one's screen only when one needs to control it, and one uses the task switcher to select a different app, once they are done controlling it. In the old experience, the music app is on one's screen when one needs to control it, and one minimises it and/or selects a different app from the Task Bar, once they are done controlling it. In both scenarios, the Music app doesn't have to be on the screen when the user doesn't need to control it, but it has to be on the screen for certain features to be executed (and in the times it doesn't have to be on the screen?e.g. there is a keyboard button to skip the playing track?the new experience works in the same way).

The only difference I see is that the new experience is more of a joy to use, especially as it's fullscreen. But it being fullscreen shouldn't matter because the reason one has it up on the screen is to control the app.

I'm struggling to understand your problem with this, as that is how I see it, but I understand that I could just be mistaken about what you mean.

A compact view of the music player perhaps? That way, there is not a big of change in view since it doesn't run full screen.

[Calum Veteran]

A compact view of the music player perhaps? That way, there is not a big of change in view since it doesn't run full screen.

Sorry, I should be more clear :) One thing I don't understand is why people may prefer a more compact window to a fullscreen, immersive window, considering their focus has to be on that app anyway. Switching out of that app and picking another app takes the same effort and time, and their focus has to be on the music app anyway. If they're not switching apps, and they're leaving another app open alongside the music app that they're controlling in the Desktop experience, currently, they can still do that in the new experience by snapping the Music app to the side and using the other app in the main content area.

Do you see what I mean when I say I don't understand the problem or why they'd like the window smaller, heh?

[HawkMan]

Many can tell you otherwise. I have 250GB of music. There's people that would think that that is a puny tiny and "not a collection" by thier standards... there are people that have double digit TERABYTES of music. Imgine those users that try to use the metro music app.

Did the people at MS try HUGE collections like those?

The thing is of course that "many" people is not even close to the majority. in fact the HUGE majority of people don't have such huge collections. MS can't make apps focused on the "poweruser" with gigabyte collections and tens of thousands of songs and ablums who want to tweak and mess with every part of the music.

they need to target the large majority of average users who want simple apps that do what they wants, fast and easy.

[Arceles]

Sorry, I should be more clear :) One thing I don't understand is why people may prefer a more compact window to a fullscreen, immersive window, considering their focus has to be on that app anyway. Switching out of that app and picking another app takes the same effort and time, and their focus has to be on the music app anyway. If they're not switching apps, and they're leaving another app open alongside the music app that they're controlling in the Desktop experience, currently, they can still do that in the new experience by snapping the Music app to the side and using the other app in the main content area.

Do you see what I mean when I say I don't understand the problem or why they'd like the window smaller, heh?

Seriously... I never use a full screen app just for music, because... you know, first, music is sound rather than image, second, controls are already on keyboards or even in my programmed in my mouse, thank god for having both foobar and winamp, they really know their business.

[Calum Veteran]

Seriously... I never use a full screen app just for music, because... you know, first, music is sound rather than image, second, controls are already on keyboards or even in my programmed in my mouse, thank god for having both foobar and winamp, they really know their business.

That's my point?the controls on the new Music app are there for people who wish to use them, and using controls in the app is the same concept as it has always been (it's just fullscreen which seemingly should provide no problem at all), but the keyboard buttons and other methods of controlling the app still work in the new experience. My point is, there appears to be no disadvantage with the new method because bringing up the Music app and getting it off the screen takes the same amount of time and effort, if people would rather use the controls on the app. It shouldn't matter that it's fullscreen or docked to the side because one has always had to have the app up on screen in order to use the controls on the app in the Desktop experience.

[encarta]

The thing is of course that "many" people is not even close to the majority. in fact the HUGE majority of people don't have such huge collections. MS can't make apps focused on the "poweruser" with gigabyte collections and tens of thousands of songs and ablums who want to tweak and mess with every part of the music.

they need to target the large majority of average users who want simple apps that do what they wants, fast and easy.

Oh so a "power app" was fine for years until now (WMP), but just like that, Microsoft has decided that most of their customers are complete morons? Simple app =/= stupid/useless app. If they care so much about retards, they could have a simple (default) view and advanced view, with all the bells and whistles.

[HawkMan]

You do realize the average computer user has changed a LOT over the years. and MS has very detailed usage metrics on how their apps are used, and that's the basis for how the new apps are made.

There was a point when the average user wanted the full power of the old WMP. that time has long since passed and their metrics show that all people do in the apps is pick a playlist and click play. for that a full media manager app with included audio wrangler, sorry EQ, is overkill and more trouble than it's worth for what the user wants to do. and just helps to confuse them and make them annoyed because the simple functions they want are hidden amidst all the advanced crap they don't need.

if you need a good media manager, Foobar is that way. people who need decent media managers know where to find it.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

?We already know few buys discs anymore and buy digitally, music stores are closing en masse or converting to media stores and now sell more games and blurays than music. And even those are rapidly getting extinct. so Digital is the value to look at.

At this point, it simply does not seem to be the case that paying for a streaming service is more prevalent than buying (let alone owning previously bought) music. Do you have numbers to the contrary? Maybe you're looking at this specifically from a scandinavian perspective where the situation appears to be different.

conditions may be too unique in the wealthy, digitally connected Scandinavian country to draw broad conclusions, they suggest that the subscription format is growing.

music subscription services still represent only a small slice of the revenue pie. The CD may be in decline, but it?s still the single most popular music format.?

[source]

?The income from streaming is so low the economic validity of it has and is questioned regularly.

Because very few people actually pay for music streaming services.

Which gets me back to wondering how you reach the conclusion that "people [?] rather pay a [?] monthly fee [than buy music]".

I still fail to see how the numbers indicate the expression of that preference? You've grabbed on to the "25% of digital revenue" I presented to you. That number includes ad-supported streaming and even YouTube of all things. I find it far-fetched to take it as evidence for the preference of users to pay a monthly fee rather than buy music.

In this day and age, probably. People are expecting the new Music app to work like that because that's how Zune and Windows Media Player worked, but they're forgetting that this is an entirely new app, and the main reason for its existence is for the music streaming service.

Apparently so.

it pushes the music streaming service first and foremost

new Microsoft music service and the apps that complement the service.

Which I think says it all. One might want to add that it's a paid service.

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .]

Which I think says it all. One might want to add that it's a paid service.

It may say it all, but that's what the service is. People expecting the new Xbox Music app to push the concept of playing files stored on people's hard drives, by default, over the main reason for the app existing (to complement the Xbox Music service), would be just like people expecting Spotify to be first and foremost an app for playing local music. That's not why Spotify was created, just like it wasn't what this app and the Xbox Music service were created for. Yet, both Spotify and this Music app offer the ability to play local files, to convenience the user and help them; an added feature.

By the way, reports have actually stated that Xbox Music will offer a free, ad-supported package, so your claim that it will be a paid service is unfounded.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

reports have actually stated that Xbox Music will offer a free, ad-supported package, so your claim that it will be a paid service is unfounded.

Thanks for the correction.

[rhianntp]

Used Win8 for a month or so, like it in general, but most of the time I find myself still using the desktop. I like the idea and design of the Metro apps, however they seem to be annoyingly slow and user-unfriendly. For example, the Mail app can take more than half a minute to launch, while the Office 2010 Outlook takes less than half the time. Also you cannot switch out of the app while waiting for it to start. For desktop apps, if the startup time of a certain app is slow, you can just launch a browser or media player or whatever during the wait. For Metro apps, if you switch out during the startup to browser the web or something, when you switch back, it will still be at the startup screen. So you need to keep staring at the whirling circles when waiting for the Metro app's slow startup. This kind of things make the Metro apps really annoying to use IMHO.

It's not just you trust me...gotta be upwards of 80% of the people who have used win8 find it annoying and unnecissary ....MS is really bold to assume the market will accept yet another attempt at beating google and apple at their own game...not gonna happen... ask blackberry how that worked out heh....alienating massive groups of their prime user base is just icing on the cake....epic fail for the ages will ensue.. can't wait to watch :) "finally a tablet that can run windows programs, and it's only $900 on average !" hahaha

[Calum Veteran]

Thanks for the correction.

No problem. I hope I didn't sound rude then?it's understandable why you may have suspected it would just be a paid service, considering how Zune Pass was :) Also, the reports about the ad-supported option may prove incorrect. We'll know soon enough.

[Dashel]

Its simply a question of information density, visibility, and app complexity. RT overall shows much less density, yet on items where the amount of data can become overwhelming, it shows far too much. I don't run anything full screen in most cases, nor do I launch files via the application. These are two core behaviors practiced by most good users that RT turns on its head with nothing more than a shrug and a nod to bad LCD users

That said, if we are talking about someone that does run all their desktop apps fullscreen, the access problems of RT are still there in comparison. The Win7 taskbar offers multiple features simply because it combines app launching, switching, and contextual tasks. Because of the new Start screen, we've (again) separated launching from app status/switching and removed all contextual tasks in the process.

Hell, just explain to me why the 1/3 snapped view isn't the same GUI as my WP7 player? It wastes an entire section of my screen and yet can't give me half the functionality the mini-Zune view gives in a couple inches. Why since can't these 'simple' RT apps better subdivide the screen to increase the lacking density. A 1080 screen can easily handle 2 phone sized views in the 1/3 viewspace.

So if anything, we needed a better high resolution grid snap system that didn't materialize. Without that, an apps suckage is greatly a factor of the weaknesses of RT alone.

[remixedcat]

The thing is of course that "many" people is not even close to the majority. in fact the HUGE majority of people don't have such huge collections. MS can't make apps focused on the "poweruser" with gigabyte collections and tens of thousands of songs and ablums who want to tweak and mess with every part of the music.

they need to target the large majority of average users who want simple apps that do what they wants, fast and easy.

how big is your collection?

[contextfree]

You do realize the average computer user has changed a LOT over the years. and MS has very detailed usage metrics on how their apps are used, and that's the basis for how the new apps are made.

I'm not sure it's because times have changed so much as they just haven't had time to add the long tail of features back in yet ...

[George P Global Moderator]

Since the music/video apps are new and also using a new framework/API I figure there will be some time before they can get close to WMP feature wise. Having said that though the goal will be to replace WMP in the end. I don't think MS even changed anything in WMP other than take out DVD playback right? It's basically the same version you find in Windows 7. The metro media apps will be the main ones going forward and this by itself means they'll get more features in time.

The only question is how long it'll take and how quickly they'll be updated. The same for the other apps that come pre-installed as well.