windows 8 Windows 8 Consumer Preview: A Call for Common Sense

[Mazhar]

One day it will all be the Metro interface that is going to left (Windows 10 may be) and we all will love it then.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

But just so we're clear, it's a modern PC. Why the frick are you shutting down a PC? It's not 1989, people.

Err yeah. Buy a 700+ PSU and then tell that again. Next time making these kind of rants he should think a bit.

Also...wat?

With the current rate of hardware advances, in a few years time tablets will be as powerful as laptop and desktops. I should imagine that in less than 5 years you will no longer have laptops/desktops but a tablet that you put in a cradle (or wirelessly talks to the monitor at your home/office). Microsoft knows this and have to plan accordingly.

You can't be serious. Tablets will be long gone before desktops, there might be a tiny chance they could take over the laptops but not desktop PC's.

[liquidguru]

You can't be serious. Tablets will be long gone before desktops, there might be a tiny chance they could take over the laptops but not desktop PC's.

It will become your desktop PC. Dock it and use it. Technology will advance.

[Vykranth]

Tried Windows 8 yesterday at home.

I cannot say that I am at ease with the metro start screen or the charm bar.

I installed Visual Studio 2011 Beta and the Start screen was literally cluttered with the shortcuts VS 2011 installed. When I display the start screen in Apps mode, it is almost full with only the dev environment. I am afraid that the apps panel will be three pages long after I get the rest of my applications.

As a multi-desktop user, the full-screen start-screen is intrusive to me and I miss the start orb as the primary start point of interaction with the operating system, now I have two.

Question regarding the position of the Charm bar: in dual or multi-screen display, where does the charm bar appear? on the right edge of the primary monitor or on the right edge of the right-most monitor?

It will become your desktop PC. Dock it and use it. Technology will advance.

Yeah, right, call me when you can have tablets with 512 Gb of Ram.

[Mugwump00]

Well it looks like this thread has failed :(

The same old change-averse people who've been trolling all the other Windows 8 threads now have ad hominem attacks to add to their pathetically tiny array of insults. We get it, you can't use Windows without a start button and you only like things that you're familiar with. If you have nothing useful to add then don't bother posting.

OK, I'll bite, oh Senior one. Please explain where in the 27 years of the Windows metaphor, do full-screen applications that obscure all legacy notification and information elements, including other app's windows, the Systray, the Superbar animated icons and even Gadgets, fit? Want 1/2 inch lettering in your email app whilst you use your laptop on the train? Me neither.

The issue is, as far as I see, that the Windows 8 Desktop is subservient to the small form-factor touch UI - Ideal only for a tiny percentage of the devices that Microsoft will target their marketing campaign against. It also doesn't work well for corporate "ordinary" users, Netbook users, virtual, remote or multi-screen desktops. A "tiny array" of issues - really?

None of this may bother Senior users, outside of the Elite/Neowin/Redmond bubble, but it's a worthy discussion, especially if it gives Microsoft any vision of perception. The people in my IT dept. have just laughed it off - I doubt that's uncommon. Microsoft really don't need that.

[PGHammer]

A certain percentage of us will be using the mouse/trackpad and a physical keyboard for a long time still. Is it really too much to ask that touch interfaces stay confined to the devices that actually support touch ?!?!

You are still making the assumption that the new UI is a touch-only interface because it looks like another touch-only interface (that of Windows Phone).

"Assumptions are the mother of all muckups." (More often than not, making an assumption leads to an erroneous conclusion.)

While the Windows 8 UI looks *somewhat* like Windows Phone in appearance, it has far more features, even initially, than the UI of Windows Phone.

Second, how do you right-click using touch? (Windows 8 supports right-click at least as well as, if not better than, Windows 7, with specific items exposed by right-clicking, such as QuickTask.)

Thirdly, what about the upgrade market? Touch-screen displays can be added to existing desktops today. (They cost more than existing displays; however the delta over such displays of the same size is not as great as it was even a year ago.)

The PC hardware market isn't static - any Neowinian knows that. How much grief have OS/distribution maintainers taken for not keeping up with advances merely in hardware that can be added to existing PCs, let alone new PCs with new capabilities? Yet you are demanding that the fracturization of the Windows OS market mirror that which had afflicted Android (and which Google was taken to task for, and found itself having to ramp up development of Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich - far faster than it planned to).

[Active.]

You are still making the assumption that the new UI is a touch-only interface because it looks like another touch-only interface

No, not because it looks like it, but because it is the exact same interface as the one MS are putting on tablets. It is also admittedly not "touch-only" but something like "touch-first", at least certainly not uncompromisingly optimized for keyboard & mouse input.

Our goal was a no compromise design.

There is no such thing.

[PGHammer]

Lets forget about power users for a moment.

If you honestly look around you, what are most people using their pc for? Email, internet, simple game they play, photo editing and more consuming.

MS wants to get into the Tablet market, and most of us agree that Win 8 looks pretty promising on a tablet. If people start buying Win 8 tablets, they will learn a new OS anyway, and they are prepared to do that.

So if people get used to windows on a tablet, it's not that far fetched to assume that the transition to Win 8 on the desktop is going to be that hard.

For a lot of people it will be nice, their pc now looks and works exactly the same as the tablet they own. They can even use the same apps.

And if you need more serious work done, you still have the desktop .

I believe MS is going for one nice consistent UI over a wide variety of devices. Because with the right apps, a lot of people will not have to see the desktop

That is *exactly* what Steve Ballmer said at BUILD - UI consistency. Right now, there really isn't any - even in terms of Windows alone.

What Metro does is allow a consistent (not identical) UI across the entirety of all of Microsoft's ecostructure - PCs of all formfactors, tablets and slates (both x86 and ARM) - even smartphones (Windows Phone) and consoles (XB360 and XBN/XBOX Next). The differences between the UIs are defined/dictated by hardware differences - nothing else. What the detractors are thinking is that UI consistency means an identical UI - that is certainly not the case, and is not intended to be the case,

[Wakers]

It's a lot of whining over nothing really. Once I've booted my computer up, I go into the desktop, I launch something from the superbar and then I don't see the start screen until I want to launch a program that's not pinned or I want to go into settings / search for a file.

The times when I do go into Metro it's nothing but helpful. I honestly don't see what the fuss is, other than people somehow feel threatened / insecure / raped because MS have changed the appearance and layout of something. All of the functions are there, nothing has been taken out.

For power users, performance is better, explorer has been redone as has the task manager. There is no issue here other than people being childish.

[Dapen]

I do kind of see Paul's point however do not tell people NOT to give feedback on things they don't like in the preview, even if it's got "preview" plastered all over it, they released it for feedback.

[Active.]

What the detractors are thinking is that UI consistency means an identical UI - that is certainly not the case, and is not intended to be the case,

It is the case though for Metro on tablets vs. on laptops and Desktop PCs, right?

Do you think the optimal UI for a 10" touch operated tablet looks and works the same as the optimal UI for a keyboard&mouse operated PC connected to a 30" screen?

And now I'm going to let this go. If people like Metro on the Desktop, I'll let them enjoy it. :)

[PGHammer]

No, not because it looks like it, but because it is the exact same interface as the one MS are putting on tablets. It is also admittedly not "touch-only" but something like "touch-first", at least certainly not uncompromisingly optimized for keyboard & mouse input.

There is no such thing.

It's not keyboard/mouse-only because *hardware* no longer is keyboard/mouse-only - not even desktops. Tablets and slates are simply more obvious; however, touch-screen desktops - mostly all-in-ones - are being sold today, and even in retail.

Windows 7's touch support is rudimentary at best - and especially compared to Windows 8's Developer Preview, let alone the Consumer Preview. However, despite that, it has not ignored the mouse users, as you and other detractors claim - some of the features - especially those exposed by right-clicking - are exclusive to the mouse crowd; in fact, these features are improvements on the same features in Windows 7.

You can add touch-screen support to a desktop running Windows 7 - even on an existing desktop such as mine (Q6600 with 4 GB) by doing a display swap and adding third-party software. However, it will look like a kludge because it will be a kludge.

What Windows 8 does is remove the kludge factor, and makes adding touch-screen support as easy as changing a keyboard or mouse. And that's without changing the rest of the hardware.

[Mugwump00]

What Metro does is allow a consistent (not identical) UI across the entirety of all of Microsoft's ecostructure - PCs of all formfactors, tablets and slates (both x86 and ARM) - even smartphones (Windows Phone) and consoles (XB360 and XBN/XBOX Next). The differences between the UIs are defined/dictated by hardware differences - nothing else. What the detractors are thinking is that UI consistency means an identical UI - that is certainly not the case, and is not intended to be the case,

I agree with the UI being consistent with the hardware, and synergizing my content across the platforms, as desirable. My problem with Metro isn't what it adds, but what has been subtracted in an arbitrary way from the desktop experience, in the name of breeding a familiarity with other Microsoft platforms.

I have Windows PCs. Loads! my, my office's, Laptops, desktops, work PC, home PC, wife's PC, mother-in-law's PC etc. etc. I don't have a WP7, and XBox, and no immediate interest in a tablet, and may well not choose W8 from the big 3 offerings.

So maybe I am just resentful that my PC experience, which has been brainlessly consistent and powerful since Windows "Chicago" times, is being forcibly interfered with, to further MS's cross-platform ambitions.

It is emotional, but that's what we are. I demand Windows as the superior desktop, and I'll take a view on the other devices in my own time. I have the choice to stay with Windows 7, but then so will many others I expect. I think Microsoft's business needs a more agreeable plan.

[devHead]

Yes, that is exactly what we're saying. Sometimes, for a major improvement to be made, a complete overhaul is required. For window management, Windows 8 should not be used in the same way people have been using Windows since Windows 95.

The thing is Callum, this isn't a major improvement in the Desktop / Laptop UI arena. It is simply taking a user interface that is designed for a touch screen on a phone or tablet and pasting it into a Desktop PC environment, and tweaking it since pretty much everyone using it has a mouse and keyboard, and doesn't start apps with their fingers.

When a major shift was made with Windows 95, Microsoft really came up with something that made working on a PC easier. It was very different, but it was built around the form factor for which it was designed. This is the first time Microsoft has created a form factor for the PC that is first and foremost designed for a different kind of device. I worked with Windows 8 CP for over a week, and still couldn't get 100% used to switching to what amounts to another shell, another 'Desktop' for the Start Menu. There are now two shells in Windows 8. The Desktop, because it's a PC and you have to have that. And a 'Start Screen' because...why? I don't know. It was like someone thought, 'Well, we can't replace the Desktop with this Metro Screen designed for a phone on PCs, so let's do it on the other most used part of the UI in Windows, the Start Menu.' There's simply no benefit to replacing the Start Menu with a Windows Phone screen. To me it's like replacing the cockpit control panel in a plane with the steering wheel and dashboard from a car. It just doesn't fit.

I say it's great to do a complete overhaul, but don't just port a user interface from a phone or a tablet into PC environment and then make it so users are between two shells. It seems like they could have done it a little better. It doesn't seem like the Windows team thought again about what PC users do with their computers and how to improve on that. They did that very well with Vista and even moreso with Windows 7. But this new Start Screen is not a product of the same kind of thinking. That said, I love the other improvements in Windows 8 with Explorer, the File Copy / Move Dialogs, Task Manager. But the Start Screen isn't an improvement in the PC realm over what was already there. It still just seems like an extra tacked-on shell that only belongs on a touch device.

[PGHammer]

It is the case though for Metro on tablets vs. on laptops and Desktop PCs, right?

Do you think the optimal UI for a 10" touch operated tablet looks and works the same as the optimal UI for a keyboard&mouse operated PC connected to a 30" screen?

And now I'm going to let this go. If people like Metro on the Desktop, I'll let them enjoy it. :)

Don't own a tablet or slate, and the only ones I've spent any time with are iPads and the odd Kindle.

I've been using the Developer Preview and Consumer Preview as desktop operating systems - complete with a keyboard and mouse and a 23" 1920x1080 flat-panel display. In my bedroom I also have a 42" flat-panel display (plasma) that can certainly accommodate PCs - I've connected notebook and desktop PCs with operating systems as old as Windows Vista to it.

The impact of Metro (and WinRT apps) on me is, at the moment, quite minimal - I still run mostly the non-RT applications, games, etc, I did on Windows 7. in fact, I don't have a single traditional application that's been replaced entirely by a WinRT app. (Some have been augmented by WinRT apps, such as Facebook chat/Facebook Messenger (Messaging) and Outlook (Mail) - however, none have been replaced.) That is, in fact, the biggest surprise, and a pleasant one at that; I had worried that the focus was going to be so firmly on WinRT that support for the non-WinRT applications/games/etc of Windows 7 was going to be broken. That didn't even come close to happening. The degree of backward-compatibility on the application side with Windows 7 is unmatched on a historical basis - the same applies with the hardware. What hardware will be upgraded or replaced is for reasons having nothing to do with the operating system.

[Southern Patriot]

Heck, *Apple* tried that (when it killed off legal Mac clones) and it darn near trainwrecked the company.

Uhhh, Apple allowing the clones was one of the things that nearly bankrupted them. Ending the clone program was the start of their recovery. Why is it that so many people get that backwards, as you did?

[TDT]

Paul is absolutely right in that article. People need to stop bitching and get used to the change (and by stop bitching I don't mean don't give feedback). It's always the same... every time something changes (Facebook, YouTube, Windows, etc.), people say "wow, this is crap, I'll never use it, I want the old design back". But after a while, they all embrace it and even promote it, like they never said anything wrong about it in the first place. I've seen this behavior on many ocasions, so I'm not talking like crazy here.

Win8 CP is just as easy to use (if not easier) as Win 7. I agree, I would like to have ONLY the metro start screen and not the traditional desktop, or at least both, but the desktop with some metro skin. But that's not a big issue for me, and certainly not a deal breaker like many people seem to think. I see what Microsoft is trying to do with all this Metro stuff, and I like it. I want to see all their stuff "united" into one big eco-system. Windows, Windows Phone, Xbox, everything.

And let's not forget that this will be a big + for developers too. ;)

[PGHammer]

I agree with the UI being consistent with the hardware, and synergizing my content across the platforms, as desirable. My problem with Metro isn't what it adds, but what has been subtracted in an arbitrary way from the desktop experience, in the name of breeding a familiarity with other Microsoft platforms.

I have Windows PCs. Loads! my, my office's, Laptops, desktops, work PC, home PC, wife's PC, mother-in-law's PC etc. etc. I don't have a WP7, and XBox, and no immediate interest in a tablet, and may well not choose W8 from the big 3 offerings.

So maybe I am just resentful that my PC experience, which has been brainlessly consistent and powerful since Windows "Chicago" times, is being forcibly interfered with, to further MS's cross-platform ambitions.

It is emotional, but that's what we are. I demand Windows as the superior desktop, and I'll take a view on the other devices in my own time. I have the choice to stay with Windows 7, but then so will many others I expect. I think Microsoft's business needs a more agreeable plan.

I go back before "Chicago" (what became Windows 95) and was part of Windows 95's beta 2 wave - so your reference is far from lost on me.

However, the very reason FOR the cross-platform ambitions is because the heretofore primary niche of Windows - the desktop - is under siege.

It's not just notebooks or even netbooks - its also those aforementioned tablets and slates (that neither of us own, and largely dismissed as *toys*) that are threatening *all* of desktop computing.

It's not just Windows on the desktop under siege - the desktop formfactor *itself* is under siege.

Quad-core (and non-ARM quad-core) tablets and slates are half the price of dual-core notebooks of a mere two years ago. (Samsung Series 7 vs. Dell Inspiron 1750.)

Touch-screen computing has come into its own - and while tablet and slate acceptance of touch is rather obvious, its showing up on desktops as well. Surprisingly, Windows 8 is responsible for none of it.

Given just both of those realities, Windows (and Microsoft) has a choice - adapt or get run over. (Basically, change or die.)

Those changes are entirely outside of Microsoft's control, and will happen regardless of what Microsoft does. That means that Microsoft has to adapt to it.

If you support other computer users, that means you have to adapt to it as well.

I have no more desire to find myself pancake-flat, covered with syrup, and served up as my competitors' breakfast due to being overtaken by events and obsolesced than Microsoft does.

*That* meant that I, personally, had to adapt to it.

That's the real issue staring us in the face with Windows 8 - do we adapt to the change that is *going* to happen (as I pointed out, due to events way outside the control of Microsoft) or do we find ourselves overtaken by events and as obsolete as the dinosaur and dodo?

[Southern Patriot]

Paul Thurrotts holier than thou attitude doesn't speak for everyone, no matter how he paints it.

Unfortunately, quite a few posters here have exactly the same "if you don't like Metro, you are an idiot" attitude. It is annoying and insulting.

[Active.]

People need to stop bitching and get used to the change

No, they don't. They can stick with Windows 7 (which is going to be supported for a long time as that's what corporations are going to continue to use - if they've even upgraded from XP), hope for Microsoft to make changes to their Metro strategy with regard to the Desktop, they can switch to OS X for their desktop operating system (at least you're getting something in return for your efforts to change), even use an iPad or Android tablets. Microsoft's share of the overall PC market (including tablets) is projected by some to fall below 50% in 2013. Consumers have a choice now, Microsoft can't just force users to get used to any arbitrary change. People should decide for themselves what kind of change makes sense for them, and what doesn't.

[PGHammer]

Uhhh, Apple allowing the clones was one of the things that nearly bankrupted them. Ending the clone program was the start of their recovery. Why is it that so many people get that backwards, as you did?

Killing the clones staved off the downward slide (because they couldn't compete with the clones on price) - however, the recovery of Apple (and most of their growth since) has nothing to do with MacOS (or even Macs) directly - that was pretty much entirely due to the iDevices and software+services for those devices. The iDevices have become the tail wagging the Apple dog.

[Southern Patriot]

Except that in Windows 7 I can press start orb and type anything to find it while not losing the focus of any applications that are opened on the native desktop.

That is my major issue with it as well, now that I've somewhat gotten the scrolling issues in Metro straightened out. I regularly am looking at something online, and click the Start button to search for something that I'm reading about, or to open another program that is related to what I'm doing (a tutorial for example). With the Start menu, this is not really an issue, since I can still see what I'm looking at on the screen while I do this, but with the Start screen, that simply isn't possible.

[PGHammer]

No, they don't. They can stick with Windows 7 (which is going to be supported for a long time as that's what corporations are going to continue to use - if they've even upgraded from XP), switch to OS X for their desktop operating system (at least you're getting something in return for your efforts to change), even use an iPad or Android tablets. Microsoft's share of the overall PC market (including tablets) is projected by some to fall below 50% in 2013. Consumers have a choice now, Microsoft can't just force users to get used to any arbitrary change. People should decide for themselves what kind of change makes sense for them, and what doesn't.

And would you just listen to what you are saying here?

The very fact that folks DO have choices means that Microsoft simply can't entrench and watch itself be niched. Maybe you don't care if Microsoft becomes a niche player (as opposed to the dominant force) in computing - Microsoft (as a public company) certainly has to care.

[TDT]

No, they don't. They can stick with Windows 7 (which is going to be supported for a long time as that's what corporations are going to continue to use - if they've even upgraded from XP), switch to OS X for their desktop operating system (at least you're getting something in return for your efforts to change), even use an iPad or Android tablets. Microsoft's share of the overall PC market (including tablets) is projected by some to fall below 50% in 2013. Consumers have a choice now, Microsoft can't just force users to get used to any arbitrary change. People should decide for themselves what kind of change makes sense for them, and what doesn't.

It's been a while since I laughed so much at a forum post. Thank you. :laugh:

In other news, 2013 will be THE Linux year. And Apple will create Skynet.

[SavvyFx]

OK, I'll bite, oh Senior one. Please explain where in the 27 years of the Windows metaphor, do full-screen applications that obscure all legacy notification and information elements, including other app's windows, the Systray, the Superbar animated icons and even Gadgets, fit? Want 1/2 inch lettering in your email app whilst you use your laptop on the train? Me neither.

Notification that is programmed into windows applications correctly still work perfectly well. Personally I prefer them, but I accept other may need time to adjust. I particularly enjoy the volume button with it's added controls and constant interface.

The superbar is still there, and metro doesn't support it. I don't believe the Metro apps really need to support it either.

I do want 1/2" lettering on the train while I email. If I don't for any particular reason, I'll open Outlook 2010.

The issue is, as far as I see, that the Windows 8 Desktop is subservient to the small form-factor touch UI - Ideal only for a tiny percentage of the devices that Microsoft will target their marketing campaign against.

I believe this is incorrect. Please cite your sources.

In approximate numbers

The Desktop/Laptop/Tablet market 2011 was 360 million pieces of hardware.

Of that, 60 million were tablets. The tablet market represents a ~16.5% market share. That is up from approximately 5% of the market the previous year. Microsoft HAVE to cater to this market.

Source: http://www.maindevice.com/2011/12/12/tablets-vs-laptops-vs-desktop-pc/

It also doesn't work well for corporate "ordinary" users, Netbook users, virtual, remote or multi-screen desktops. A "tiny array" of issues - really?

I disagree, my corporate use is fine with windows 8 on the laptop.

I haven't installed windows 8 on a netbook, virtual or remote or multi-screened desktop yet, so I can't comment on the usability of these. It doesn't strike me as a significant issue though.

None of this may bother Senior users, outside of the Elite/Neowin/Redmond bubble, but it's a worthy discussion, especially if it gives Microsoft any vision of perception. The people in my IT dept. have just laughed it off - I doubt that's uncommon. Microsoft really don't need that.

I do agree with the importance of the perception. However, I believe people need to give it a fair go. It is different, and before users judge to harshly, they should struggle through the paradigm shift for a while to see if they can adapt.

Things such as a shutdown button not being omni present are silly. Shutting down your computer is not a task that you perform several times through out the day and therefore should not be on the front of every menu seen. Laptops and Tablets have power buttons well with in reach of the screen.

The thing is Callum, this isn't a major improvement in the Desktop / Laptop UI arena. It is simply taking a user interface that is designed for a touch screen on a phone or tablet and pasting it into a Desktop PC environment, and tweaking it since pretty much everyone using it has a mouse and keyboard, and doesn't start apps with their fingers.

I find this an improvement, but as we know that's just an opinion. You refer to your opinion as fact, which it is not.

I disagree with your findings. It isn't simply pasted into the desktop PC environment. It is well researched and what I believe to be well executed. There is still room for improvement, but the general paradigm I find much better.

Problems with the old start menu:

• The menu feels cramped relative to available screen real estate when you try to see and navigate the full catalog of your programs.
  
• Search doesn?t have the space it deserves to quickly show you rich results across all sources of information, especially on larger screens.
  
• It?s hard to customize the menu to make it feel like it?s really yours.
  
• Icons and shortcuts are static and don?t leverage more of the pixels we see in modern graphical interfaces to surface connected scenarios
  

Source: http://blogs.msdn.co...start-menu.aspx

I agree with every single point above.

When a major shift was made with Windows 95, Microsoft really came up with something that made working on a PC easier. It was very different, but it was built around the form factor for which it was designed. This is the first time Microsoft has created a form factor for the PC that is first and foremost designed for a different kind of device.

The desktop as you have known it is still present, but with some nice improvements along the way.

Better notifications

Faster

Better file copying windows

Better file manager

Better task manager

This however, is not the major point. The market for PC's is shifting as described above. The desktop is losing market share at an alarming rate, and how people use the device is evolving too. Windows 8 is designed to be used in a consistent manner across all devices. This is the first step in evolving in how we all use computers.

I worked with Windows 8 CP for over a week, and still couldn't get 100% used to switching to what amounts to another shell, another 'Desktop' for the Start Menu. There are now two shells in Windows 8. The Desktop, because it's a PC and you have to have that. And a 'Start Screen' because...why? I don't know. It was like someone thought, 'Well, we can't replace the Desktop with this Metro Screen designed for a phone on PCs, so let's do it on the other most used part of the UI in Windows, the Start Menu.' There's simply no benefit to replacing the Start Menu with a Windows Phone screen. To me it's like replacing the cockpit control panel in a plane with the steering wheel and dashboard from a car. It just doesn't fit.

The reasons are listed in this blog post [http://blogs.msdn.co...start-menu.aspx]. Effectively they have made the start menu full screen. The reasoning is well justified, your assumption of 'Well, we can't replace the Desktop with this Metro Screen designed for a phone on PCs, so let's do it on the other most used part of the UI in Windows, the Start Menu.' is incorrect.

I say it's great to do a complete overhaul, but don't just port a user interface from a phone or a tablet into PC environment and then make it so users are between two shells. It seems like they could have done it a little better. It doesn't seem like the Windows team thought again about what PC users do with their computers and how to improve on that. They did that very well with Vista and even moreso with Windows 7. But this new Start Screen is not a product of the same kind of thinking. That said, I love the other improvements in Windows 8 with Explorer, the File Copy / Move Dialogs, Task Manager. But the Start Screen isn't an improvement in the PC realm over what was already there. It still just seems like an extra tacked-on shell that only belongs on a touch device.

Do you use Metro apps in your work day? I really don't. I use text editors, full featured web browsers, file systems, document editors, spread sheets, email program and calculators. None of the metro apps would help me accomplish my job any better. I look forward to when they do. I find I spend the vast majority of my day with one or two windows full sized. When I get a laptop screen where I can split with metro (1280x800 at the moment), I expect to be able to accomplish tasks even faster.

Edit: Forgot to past in the first link