Windows 8 RTM in July/Aug, GA in Sept/Oct

[Belazor]

Because there will come a day where the menu would disappear once more, and people would still moan and complain. They took the "classic" menu away in Windows 7, and people *itched and moaned, even though the classic menu was two generations outdated by that point (Heck, some of you here still can't get over the fact that the 9x Start Menu is gone).

But like I said, I believe this is different because the similarities between the Classic Start Menu and the "Modern" Start Menu(s) were smaller than the difference between the "Modern" Start Menu and Metro Start.

The Control Panel still allows you to view all setting areas quickly by switching to Icon View, and if I'm not mistaken that has been a feature of Windows for a good while longer.

Basically, people resist change, and sooner or later have to fess up to it. You could clearly see first time using Windows 7, that the Start Menu was either going to face a massive overhaul or be killed off completely, if not in Windows 8, then Windows 9. Seems Microsoft choose Windows 8 to do so.

Some people mindlessly resist all change, yes. Personally I only resist change that I feel is pointless and either doesn't increase productivity or in fact -decreases- productivity. Thus far, I have not seen anything from Metro UI that would lead me to believe it increases my productivity as a web developer.

This isn't me saying "I am 100% convinced that Metro UI is terrible for productivity and nothing you or anyone else can show me will convince me otherwise", I'm genuinely saying I haven't actually seen anything that convinces me that Metro UI will either increase or not decrease my productivity.

I constantly have 3 browsers with multiple tabs open, often in side-by-side view, as well as a host of other programs like my IDE, chat, email etc. I also run a dual-screen setup, and I have heard how Hot Corners is trickier to use with a dual-screen setup. My main screen is to the right of my secondary screen.

Does anyone have a demonstration of Metro UI under these usage scenarios that can prove to me that it doesn't have any quirks when I want to access / run my apps and doesn't decrease productivity?

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Some people mindlessly resist all change, yes. Personally I only resist change that I feel is pointless and either doesn't increase productivity or in fact -decreases- productivity. Thus far, I have not seen anything from Metro UI that would lead me to believe it increases my productivity as a web developer.

people felt the same way when the first GUI is introduced, said it decreased their productivity, some people still prefer command line over gui. and the same thing can be said about the transition from windows 3.1 to windows 95

This isn't me saying "I am 100% convinced that Metro UI is terrible for productivity and nothing you or anyone else can show me will convince me otherwise", I'm genuinely saying I haven't actually seen anything that convinces me that Metro UI will either increase or not decrease my productivity.

there are two productivity complaints that i hear consistently (both stupid trivial complaints)

1) "It takes up the full screen and takes my focus away from other windows I have open" stupid because if you're opening the start menu you should be paying attention to what you're opening anyway

2) "It's harder and takes more time to shut down my PC" it takes a couple extra steps to go to the 'charm_bar > settings > power > shutdown' which adds up to be like less than a second more than it took before, how lazy can you be to complain about something so trivial

I constantly have 3 browsers with multiple tabs open, often in side-by-side view, as well as a host of other programs like my IDE, chat, email etc. I also run a dual-screen setup, and I have heard how Hot Corners is trickier to use with a dual-screen setup. My main screen is to the right of my secondary screen.

Does anyone have a demonstration of Metro UI under these usage scenarios that can prove to me that it doesn't have any quirks when I want to access / run my apps and doesn't decrease productivity?

It is a little quirky working with multiple monitors, but I give it the benefit of the doubt since it's still in beta

[Belazor]

people felt the same way when the first GUI is introduced, said it decreased their productivity, some people still prefer command line over gui

That's true, and people who worked / work with command line all day will say it's always faster than a GUI. That doesn't mean we should remove the option of using the command line to accomplish these tasks.

If you're trying to make a point with this, I gotta say I'm not convinced. People still have the option of running, say, a headless web server. Nobody's forced to use a GUI or a WHM/cPanel style solution.

1) "It takes up the full screen and takes my focus away from other windows I have open" stupid because if you're opening the start menu you should be paying attention to what you're opening anyway

I'll grant you that this isn't a major issue (for me). 100% unnecessary, but not game-breaking.

2) "It's harder and takes more time to shut down my PC" it takes a couple extra steps to go to the 'charm_bar > settings > power > shutdown' which adds up to be like less than a second more than it took before, how lazy can you be to complain about something so trivial

I think you're misunderstanding why people are complaining. The vast majority of intelligent people who comment on this isn't worried about the extra second (even though I strongly disagree with you that having to align your mouse to the charm bar, wait for it to load, then click through 3 menus to shut down or restart your computer would only take 1 extra second, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), but rather the fact that it's a 100% unnecessary contrivance.

Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's better. If it takes longer for you to accomplish a task - even discounting the learning curve - then it is a bad change and should not be done.

Would you agree to Neowin removing the "More Reply Options" button if they put all the options in Quick Reply, but made it take 5 times longer to appear?

I'm not saying it takes 5 times longer to shut down or restart your computer on Win8, I'm just making a point.

Would you agree to this change under the guise of "it's new, so it's better"?

An intelligent person would say "no, this is not better. I preferred to wait 2 seconds to load the More Reply Options page whenever I need the extra reply options, rather than wait 10 seconds to post any reply even if I don't need the extra reply options."

Anything else is being an apologist, which is not a good thing.

Sorry, but saying "it's okay to make things more difficult to access / use because it's new" is not a valid argument.

That being said, if Metro UI has an advantage over existing start menu / desktop widgets then it would be valid to say "I'll accept the added difficulty in accessing an infrequently used feature, because the other benefits outweigh this" - thus far I have not seen a single thing convincing me that this is the case.

I'm still very much open to being convinced though :)

It is a little quirky working with multiple monitors, but I give it the benefit of the doubt since it's still in beta

I'll agree that beta is indeed beta - I'd be pretty hypocritical if I as a developer judged a Beta as a final product.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

I think you're misunderstanding why people are complaining. The vast majority of intelligent people who comment on this isn't worried about the extra second (even though I strongly disagree with you that having to align your mouse to the charm bar, wait for it to load, then click through 3 menus to shut down or restart your computer would only take 1 extra second, but we'll go with it for the sake of argument), but rather the fact that it's a 100% unnecessary contrivance.

oh yeah because moving your mouse to the bottom right corner and moving it up right away takes SO much longer than moving your mouse to the bottom left corner clicking and moving up (I'm sorry but I'm also tired of the waiting for the charm bar to load argument as well, it's a load of crap. the charm bar loads instantly when you put your mouse in the corner and drag it up)

Sorry, but saying "it's okay to make things more difficult to access / use because it's new" is not a valid argument.

things are NOT more difficult to access. you're just unwilling to learn the new placements

so what you're saying, is it's ok to leave things the same just for the sake not changing? nothing would ever improve. with that mindset we wouldn't even have the start menu and UI we have in Windows 7

[Belazor]

oh yeah because moving your mouse to the bottom right corner and moving it up right away takes SO much longer than moving your mouse to the bottom left corner clicking and moving up (I'm sorry but I'm also tired of the waiting for the charm bar to load argument as well, it's a load of crap. the charm bar loads instantly when you put your mouse in the corner and drag it up)

Unfortunately your argument is false, at the moment if I want to restart my computer I can hit the Win key and click Restart. To my knowledge, there's no 1-click solution in Win8.

Saying my argument is a load of crap just because you don't mind click-drag to make Charm Bar appear -> click Controls -> click Shutdown -> click Restart or whatever (your post makes it really confusing how the Charm Bar actually works, I was under the impression it was a mouseover pop-in? You mention clicking and dragging...) just goes to show you ignored my point.

Please refrain from discussing this further if you are not going to follow basic rules of discussion, it's really frustrating to not be able to have a rational discussion with you.

things are NOT more difficult to access. you're just unwilling to learn the new placements

I'm quite confused how you drew that conclusion from my post. At the moment, to restart my computer I only have to hit 1 key on my keyboard and click 1 button. You have stated on two occasions how several clicks (and also some dragging? still confused about that...) are required.

Please explain to me how 1 click is not easier to access than 3 clicks.

so what you're saying, is it's ok to leave things the same just for the sake not changing? nothing would ever improve. with that mindset we wouldn't even have the start menu and UI we have in Windows 7

I'm sorry, straw man arguments do not work in an adult and intelligent discussion. You can't flip an argument around on me and claim my point is defeated in this manner.

Saying "You dislike this change, therefore you dislike all change" is a logical fallacy. See http://en.wikipedia....w_man#Reasoning - You used 2.1 (Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.) to create this fallacy.

If you do not have valid counter-arguments then please refrain from posting.

For the sake of entertaining your fallacy; I dislike using Windows versions lower than 7, after seeing the power of the SuperBar and how it increases my productivity.

I have yet to see how Metro UI will increase my productivity, and nobody has provided me with the frequently requested information proving that Metro UI will increase productivity.

Therefore, I currently believe Metro UI is an unnecessary change "for the sake of change" (in a desktop environment), which is always the wrong reason to change something. Change should only be done when it's for the better.

Please convince me that Metro UI is a change for the better in a desktop environment.

[Dot Matrix]

Please convince me that Metro UI is a change for the better in a desktop environment.

Se my sig, for a video that shows where Microsoft wants to take Metro.

[Belazor]

Se my sig, for a video that shows where Microsoft wants to take Metro.

I'm rather confused as to how your video is in any way, shape or form relevant to whether Metro UI in Windows 8 on a desktop or laptop computer is a change for the better.

To clarify, I watched it last night. I quite like videos like these, as it's fun to dream about a utopian future. However, from my PoV it's 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[d4rk5ky]

No, see windows 8 has a bunch of core improvements, faster boot, faster game preformance, better file management, better power management. The OS itself is an upgrade, but the Interface slapped onto it is not.

+1 Exactly.

[Dot Matrix]

I'm rather confused as to how your video is in any way, shape or form relevant to whether Metro UI in Windows 8 on a desktop or laptop computer is a change for the better.

To clarify, I watched it last night. I quite like videos like these, as it's fun to dream about a utopian future. However, from my PoV it's 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't think it is. Windows 8 is just the beginning of the transition. Windows 9 and 10 will move us further closer to what you see in that video. WinRT needs some time to mature, but once it does, we'll forget all about Win32.

[Belazor]

I don't think it is. Windows 8 is just the beginning of the transition. Windows 9 and 10 will move us further closer to what you see in that video. WinRT needs some time to mature, but once it does, we'll forget all about Win32.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Windows 8 it's impossible to have Metro apps overlap on top of each other like the video in your signature shows, right?

All I recall seeing is you can have 1 Metro app stickied to the side of the screen, showing a monochrome bar with the app icon in the center, that lets you switch back to this app quicker than going through the normal task switching routine for Metro apps.

If this is the case, then I believe Metro UI is far too immature to be forced on users in this manner.

App overlapping / window stacking / whatever you wish to call it with a taskbar-like system beneath the currently active stack / window is IMO essential for productivity.

If Metro UI cannot provide this level of user interaction at this time, then it is counter-productive and essentially a research experiment we are unable to opt out of.

I understand that MS wants us to get used to developing Metro apps instead of Win32 apps, thus softening the transition for users when a modern 3D OS such as your video becomes commonplace, I really do.

However, I believe that not only is the timing but also the implementation quite wrong.

The timing is wrong because we are in the last few years (relatively speaking) of traditional computers - quantum computers are coming. It's widely known that programming for a quantum computer is vastly different than programming for traditional computers.

I believe it would be a much better idea to produce Metro OS as a whole new OS for quantum computers when the time comes that quantum computers are programmable.

The implementation is wrong because (to my knowledge) it does not currently support features that are essential to productivity, i.e. window stacking / overlapping.

Now obviously the implementation can be changed, but in my opinion it would have been a much better idea to hold off on presenting this to the masses until such a time as it was actually a viable replacement for a traditional Win32 environment.

[Dot Matrix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Windows 8 it's impossible to have Metro apps overlap on top of each other like the video in your signature shows, right?

Not yet, but I feel it's coming.

Even so, multitasking on Metro is no biggie. Just because you can't have 438539485698437652938475629384729410234985295346523948539458739 overlapping windows open (like power users seem to claim they always do), I can easily switch between open apps, even on the desktop with a mouse and keyboard. Best part is, it reduces the amount of on-screen clutter. With that said, how many windows does the average Windows user have open at a time? No less than three or no more than five, I would bet.

What I would like to see is resizeable fullscreen apps, that way I can pin a browser and Word, and be able to have both dividing up the screen evenly.

[Belazor]

This is my current taskbar: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13049666/taskbar.png - for me, this is a perfectly average amount of apps I have open.

I think if these were all Metro apps, it would be a nightmare to switch between them.

At least you seem to be willing to admit that Metro UI was designed for the "average user" (maybe I'm reading too much into your post, if so I apologise) - regardless, this furthers my point that they should not enforce this new UI on users until it's ready to fit all usage scenarios.

[Stoffel]

This is my current taskbar: http://dl.dropbox.co...666/taskbar.png - for me, this is a perfectly average amount of apps I have open.

I think if these were all Metro apps, it would be a nightmare to switch between them.

At least you seem to be willing to admit that Metro UI was designed for the "average user" (maybe I'm reading too much into your post, if so I apologise) - regardless, this furthers my point that they should not enforce this new UI on users until it's ready to fit all usage scenarios.

So far I have really enjoyed reading your posts, no trolling, just asking critical questions, nice one!!!

I don't know if you know but you can easily switch between apps by just swinging your mouse in the upper right corner and keep clicking, it will keep switching between all your apps, and the normal Alt+Tab will also still work.

Now for what you use Windows, METRO is not a perfect fit. That's why MS have left the Desktop.

The reason they are putting Metro on the desktop is because they want to create a consistent UI for phone, tablet and PC. For most users, mom and pop, who use the pc for browsing, email, watch a movie or play an occasional game, Metro would be perfect. For them there will be a small learning curve and after that it will be easier.

For you as a power users, you will spend most of your time on the desktop if you want to be productive.

But I don't feel, the Metro start screen is a step back over the start menu. It's easier to organize your programs, the target is bigger so it's quicker to hit the right button.

I also like to system wide search that allows you to search using specific apps. The share contract is another thing that I feel is really interesting, it makes your OS richer by installing extra apps that can share info without knowing about each other.

On top of that you have to improvements on the desktop side, like the new task manager, the new copy/move implementation,....

There are definitely some quirks in it, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt, it' s still in beta.

Let's continue the discussion

[JaredFrost]

Because there will come a day where the menu would disappear once more, and people would still moan and complain. They took the "classic" menu away in Windows 7, and people *itched and moaned, even though the classic menu was two generations outdated by that point (Heck, some of you here still can't get over the fact that the 9x Start Menu is gone).

Basically, people resist change, and sooner or later have to fess up to it. You could clearly see first time using Windows 7, that the Start Menu was either going to face a massive overhaul or be killed off completely, if not in Windows 8, then Windows 9. Seems Microsoft choose Windows 8 to do so.

Well, you might as well add the option to disable it now, because there will come a day when the option is there, Microsoft may think this is a good move, but sales will prove otherwise.

You say the classic menu was removed in Windows 7, but you ignore the fact they kept it an option for 2 more version of Windows before we got to V7

People aren't resistant to change because they don't like change, they resist this change because it's not good, all the other changes in Windows 8 I like.

[JaredFrost]

No, the classic Menu was depreciated in Windows XP

You're wrong on that, you could enable the classic menu in Windows XP

[Dot Matrix]

You're wrong on that, you could enable the classic menu in Windows XP

You *could*, but it was pretty much useless in XP.

[JaredFrost]

You *could*, but it was pretty much useless in XP.

The usefulness of it is irrelevant, you could enable the classic menu in XP.

[Order_66]

Come July/Aug Microsoft is going to need their fanboys more than ever.

[:: Lyon ::]

I guess there' s not much time for a new UI optimised for Desktop? I guess the upcoming Beta before the final release should answer all of our doubts and questions

[Ci7]

I guess there' s not much time for a new UI optimised for Desktop? I guess the upcoming Beta before the final release should answer all of our doubts and questions

customer preview is the beta

[ViperAFK]

You *could*, but it was pretty much useless in XP.

That seems like a baseless statement, How was it "useless" in xp? I used to use it fine...

[Shaun N.]

Misleading subject is misleading.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Misleading subject is misleading.

how is it misleading?

[DeadEndAccount]

how is it misleading?

Because the subject is alluding to the contents of the post being an official release date - if it is a rumour it should be prefixed as such.

[protocol7]

It isn't going to happen. Adapt to the Metro start screen or stick to Win7. Or switch to OS X/Linux/FreeBSD/whatever.

Thing is, this is exactly what MS's corporate customers are going to do. It takes ages for them to even trust rolling out a service pack.