Windows 8 RTM Stock App Previews

By LightShadow
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

I can't stand full-screen apps on my 27-inch screen for the exact reason the vast majority of apps don't utilize a 2560 x 1440 workspace fully. Which isn't exactly surprising considering most of the time there simply isn't enough content to fill it with. There's just no reason why I would need a full-screen mail client, contacts, calendar, browser etc. Hell, it rarely happens I have to "maximize" a word processor. Again, there's simply not enough content to warrant the need. Beyond that, the apps seem really basic functionality-wise. More on the level of Windows Phone rather than Windows. Looking at any of the Metro apps you see a lot of non-functional empty space.

You should avoid buying anything retina-class from Apple then :p

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I can't stand full-screen apps on my 27-inch screen for the exact reason the vast majority of apps don't utilize a 2560 x 1440 workspace fully. Which isn't exactly surprising considering most of the time there simply isn't enough content to fill it with. There's just no reason why I would need a full-screen mail client, contacts, calendar, browser etc. Hell, it rarely happens I have to "maximize" a word processor. Again, there's simply not enough content to warrant the need. Beyond that, the apps seem really basic functionality-wise. More on the level of Windows Phone rather than Windows. Looking at any of the Metro apps you see a lot of non-functional empty space.

That all makes sense to me. I certainly see your issues. Perhaps I will also end up feeling the same when I've used the Windows 8 Metro experience much more. Right now, I find myself in Desktop most of the time, and I rarely touch the Metro apps. That could be because I'd like Facebook and Spotify apps, and without them, staying on the desktop subconsciously seems best, I don't know, but that isn't a good sign :/

Grand Master

Dashel

Posted
Posted

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility. MS has to. Since they can't just pull the 'legacy' Desktop until Metro grows, there is little incentive for superior app developers to go simple.

The shallowness and store oriented nature of the Music app compared to Zune is worlds apart. Until there is a single demonstration of the new found power of WinRT that is as complex and dense as its desktop counterpart, I'll remain cautiously optimistic but unconvinced. Simply because none of the people over the moon for Metro care either. MS guys like Brandon give the most sugary sweet sales 'examples' of how these new 'alpha' apps are all he needs.

So far, we're just supposed to enjoy this return to simplicity, which is fine those who have never tasted something better.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

That all makes sense to me. I certainly see your issues. Perhaps I will also end up feeling the same when I've used the Windows 8 Metro experience much more. Right now, I find myself in the desktop most of the time, and I rarely touch the Metro apps. That could be because I'd like Facebook and Spotify apps, and without them, staying on the desktop subconsciously seems best, I don't know, but that isn't a good sign :/

Honestly I don't think even Microsoft expects you to use metro apps on a desktop PC. On the other hand, once .neo's display driver is updated for Windows 8 - he should be able to scale metro apps nicely.

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility. MS does. Since they can't just pull the 'legacy' Desktop until Metro grows, there is little incentive for superior app developers to go simple. Which is really still the point.

The shallowness and store oriented nature of the Music app compared to Zune is worlds apart. Until there is a single demonstration of the new found power of WinRT that is as complex and dense as its desktop counterpart, I'll remain cautiously optimistic but unconvinced. Simply because none of the people over the moon for Metro care either.

So far, we're just supposed to enjoy this return to simplicity, which is fine those who have never tasted something better.

I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

Grand Master

Dashel

Posted
Posted

I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

I agree, OneNote is the best example I've seen so far too. When you compare MetroIE to IE proper for example, that's a huge jump. If MS isn't committed to it gaining parity (and has said many omissions are on purpose), why should we expect different from anyone else?

Experienced

Wyn6

Posted
Posted

Honestly I don't think even Microsoft expects you to use metro apps on a desktop PC. On the other hand, once .neo's display driver is updated for Windows 8 - he should be able to scale metro apps nicely.

I think the only metro app I genuinely liked so far is OneNoteMX and although it is not exactly shallow - it is not a complex app anyway.

There's some pretty good Metro apps in the Store now depending on your needs/usage. Tweetro and MetroTwit are stellar Twitter clients. Discourse, an News 360 are great news aggregator apps. Buzztap is an interesting app for sports aficionados. The Newegg and Digital Folio apps are very nice as well. Cookbook and All Recipes. These are just a few I have installed at the moment. There are many more.

This isn't to say these apps have a deep level of complexity, but they're nicely done and well thought out. I can only imagine that the level of complexity and wider use cases will grow and get better over time.

Devs will start doing things along the lines of the OneNote MX apps with other apps at some point. Maybe even at release.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted

You should avoid buying anything retina-class from Apple then :p

Retina has nothing to do with the actual available workspace. From the top of my head the 15-inch MacBook Pro has a higher resolution than my 27-inch iMac. The default workspace of the former on the other hand is much smaller.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted

Which is the rub. Apple is all about forcing change because they don't really care about compatibility.

What you're saying here is just wrong on so many levels. When Apple shifted from Mac OS 9 to OS X they offered a compatibility layer to run "Classic" apps. They continued to support this from 2001 till 2007. Big difference with Microsoft's tactic was they literally declared Mac OS 9 (and below) dead and made all their software natively available on OS X from the get go. However, compatibility with older software remained.

About five years later when Apple switched from PPC to Intel the company went through great lengths to maintain support for both PPC and Intel Macs through Universal Binaries. Software that could natively run on both platforms without needing independent versions. They did the same with 32/64-bit. The company even wrote a piece of software that allowed PPC-only software to seamlessly run on Intel. No two different environments, no switching between operating systems, nothing. For the end-user it wasn't any different from running native Intel/Universal software. With Microsoft it's all about segregation, different editions, different versions and lacking compatibility in either the one or other. The whole Metro/desktop thing in Windows 8 is no exception to the rule.

If you look at OS X' history you'll also notice Apple forced very little sudden changes onto its user base. Things changed very gradually. Even new Aqua versions were introduced first through iTunes allowing people to become familiar with it before being applied system-wide. The hints of iOS people already knew from Apple's handheld devices.

Collaborator

SledgeNZ

Posted
Posted

There's some pretty good Metro apps in the Store now depending on your needs/usage. Tweetro and MetroTwit are stellar Twitter clients. Discourse, an News 360 are great news aggregator apps. Buzztap is an interesting app for sports aficionados. The Newegg and Digital Folio apps are very nice as well. Cookbook and All Recipes. These are just a few I have installed at the moment. There are many more.

This isn't to say these apps have a deep level of complexity, but they're nicely done and well thought out. I can only imagine that the level of complexity and wider use cases will grow and get better over time.

Devs will start doing things along the lines of the OneNote MX apps with other apps at some point. Maybe even at release.

In addition to this developers still have another 3 months to polish and refine their apps. With the RTM of Win8 and VS12 we know what we need to work around as opposed to waiting for fixes that may or may not come. What you are seeing are the more basic apps that are easy to push out within the short timeframe given between releases of Win8. Better apps are definitely coming.
Grand Master

George P Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

I agree, OneNote is the best example I've seen so far too. When you compare MetroIE to IE proper for example, that's a huge jump. If MS isn't committed to it gaining parity (and has said many omissions are on purpose), why should we expect different from anyone else?

So they can stand out and be better? Really, why do you pick one app over the other at the end of the day? I'd like to think it's because they either do it better than the other app or they do more than the other app. If these free built-in apps stay this way until SP1 or Win9 or w/e doesn't that just leave it open for 3rd party developers to fill in the gaps like they always have?

I also think there is incentive to have a metro version of a desktop app, even a complex one like the stuff adobe makes. Say something like Photoshop online or w/e. I haven't personally tried it but how hard would it be to just make that into a metro app? At the end of the day it's not the full photoshop client from what I remember hearing so having a "simpler" or "lite" version of beefy desktop apps can only be a good thing. Say a user gets good at the lite version of the app, if they want to really dive into it then offer up the advanced/pro desktop version and you've basically got them hooked.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

Retina has nothing to do with the actual available workspace. From the top of my head the 15-inch MacBook Pro has a higher resolution than my 27-inch iMac. The default workspace of the former on the other hand is much smaller.

Right, that's what I was getting at. The increased resolution offers nothing that improves productivity IMO and in a way they are wasting those pixels if you can't see "more".

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Except by the time Win95 hit, most apps weren't in DOS because they allowed prior versions of Windows to coexist while it developed new Win16/32 apps. The point is, Win95 users didn't spend 95% of their time in DOS or Win3.1 mode nor did MS force us to launch Win3.1 to access DOS.

I didn't say Win95 users spent 95% of their time in DOS. But at launch, many did spend an awful lot of time in DOS apps running inside of Windows (i.e. popular games like Doom and Tie Fighter, apps like WordPerfect, virtually every LOB app, appointment scheduling system, etc). Over time that changed and many users eventually stopped using DOS/console apps altogether. Not everyone did though, and even 15-20 years later, some people still use console apps.

I know you are too young to have used it at release

Hilarious, but not correct.

but Windows has always had a CLI, that didn't start with Win95.

I was specifically referring to the fact that in Windows 95 you didn't switch between two different OS's or shells, and you couldn't choose to boot to console mode (at least not easily, and how valuable was it, ultimately, to even support that advanced option?). For all intents and purposes, Win95 users were always greeted with the Win95 shell (taskbar + start menu). And even though the start menu was a GUI element, it was the central place for launching both GUI and non-GUI apps. The Win95-era GUI was responsible for allowing Windows (and indeed PCs as a whole) to reach new customers and handle new scenarios. Some console scenarios migrated well to this new world very quickly, but others took time, and still others are still with us today. Those tools are still just as important as ever to those who use them (ask anyone who uses powershell, or devs like me who live in CMD every day). But they're clearly more of a niche than they used to be, not because anything changed for those people, but because the platform and ecosystem expanded. There was a lot of resistance from a subset of these folks to move to Windows 95 where they were "forced" to interact with a GUI to launch their console tools. It was a case where something changed for them and the benefit wasn't immediately apparent, so they objected. But how much of that was still around a year later? Two years? Who would argue today that Windows 95 should've gone out of its way to enable a console-only mode?

This makes for a pretty good parallel with Windows 8, where the shell you boot into is clearly aligned with the modern platform and app UX model, but brings forward all the same ability to launch, use, and manage your traditional GUI/desktop apps (and your console ones!). Yeah it's a change, and maybe it's hard for some to see the value prop in the short term. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The parts aren't a unified whole like they were in Win95.

You think console apps and Win32 GUI apps felt the same on Win95? Do you remember that console apps always launched full-screen? And on higher-end systems (i.e. higher than VGA resolution) would force a long and flickery screen resolution change? (and many were generally not usable when forced into windowed mode - good windowed mode support for console apps didn't come until Win2000/XP).

I'd argue the other way. I think desktop apps feel far more natural on Windows 8 than DOS/console apps did on Windows 95.

Grand Master

Dashel

Posted
Posted

So they can stand out and be better? Really, why do you pick one app over the other at the end of the day? I'd like to think it's because they either do it better than the other app or they do more than the other app. If these free built-in apps stay this way until SP1 or Win9 or w/e doesn't that just leave it open for 3rd party developers to fill in the gaps like they always have?

I also think there is incentive to have a metro version of a desktop app, even a complex one like the stuff adobe makes. At the end of the day it's not the full photoshop client from what I remember hearing so having a "simpler" or "lite" version of beefy desktop apps can only be a good thing. Say a user gets good at the lite version of the app, if they want to really dive into it then offer up the advanced/pro desktop version and you've basically got them hooked.

Are you honestly going to tell me that MetroIE or Music is better? The rest is only confirming my point.

Again, take away the crutch of the desktop version and tell me if that is still acceptable. The point is, until MS shows us if and how complex apps can exist in Metro, there is the same assumption you made, that the Metro Photoshop will be the basic 'essentials' version and Pros will use the desktop. You are still describing a fundamental two app system, so that is an argument for two different OSs - which is not what anyone that is 'pro' Metro should be happy about.

Grand Master

George P Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

Are you honestly going to tell me that MetroIE or Music is better? The rest is only confirming my point.

Again, take away the crutch of the desktop version and tell me if that is still acceptable. The point is, until MS shows us if and how complex apps can exist in Metro, there is the same assumption you made, that the Metro Photoshop will be the basic 'essentials' version and Pros will use the desktop. You are still describing a fundamental two app system, so that is an argument for two different OSs - which is not what anyone that is 'pro' Metro should be happy about.

I'm not saying they're better than they're desktop counterparts, not at this point in time but only that this leaves it open for other developers to try and make better metro versions. What if Metro FF or Metro Chrome is better than Metro IE and has more features? What if someone makes a better music app than the built in music? I don't see why any of this can't happen exactly, baring any limitations in winrt itself.

I also don't see why you can't be pro metro and not also support the idea of having both metro and desktop apps? Unless by pro metro you mean those who want to go metro only? I think MS has already started to show how you can make more complex apps with OneNote MX. The radial dial element is a step to replacing drop down menus and also, unless this is blocked somehow, why can't you have lots of options popup from either the app bar at the bottom or down from the top? In the long run I have no doubt we'll see more advanced metro apps. The second part of my post was answering the question as to "why" a desktop developer would bother doing a metro app. I think my answer was clear, even if the metro version of your app is simpler that's no reason not to jump in now and do it, then you can get people to use it and get them hooked and also get them to move up to the desktop version.

Lots of people don't use a number of different desktop apps because they're too complex for them from the start. It takes time to wrap your head around something like photoshop, or premier etc. Now just think if you can start them off with the basics and then basically up-sell them later. Why wouldn't you want to do that?

Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

Until Microsoft gets rid of the desktop Adobe doesn't need to do anything.

To compete with the built in PDF reader, I would think they have to.

The point is, until MS shows us if and how complex apps can exist in Metro...

They have, it's called OneNote MX.
Grand Master

Active.

Posted
Posted

To compete with the built in PDF reader, I would think they have to.

The built in PDF reader is nothing to write home about on a 'proper' PC, compared to Adobe's existing product. It's really only WinRT devices where Adobe doesn't have a competing offering yet, and it will take time before such devices get any relevant market share at all.

They have, it's called OneNote MX.

Does that really count as a 'complex app'? :huh:

(Haven't actually used it yet since I couldn't get it to launch)

post-5569-0-44128800-1343954975.jpg

Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

The built in PDF reader is nothing to write home about on a 'proper' PC, compared to Adobe's existing product. It's really only WinRT devices where Adobe doesn't have a competing offering yet, and it will take time before such devices get any relevant market share at all.

Does that really count as a 'complex app'? :huh:

(Haven't actually used it yet since I couldn't get it to launch)

OneNote MX is the most complex Metro app I've used so far. The radial menu really kills it. Most functional thing I've seen in Metro so far.

Grand Master

MorganX

Posted
Posted

I'm shocked by this because when Windows 8 was still in beta apologists kept saying "Wait until the product is finished". Now Windows 8 hit RTM people still aren't allowed to criticize the over-simplicity of the build-in apps? Redirecting people to the desktop is just a lame response. Especially because there are no build-in desktop counterparts that actually offer more functionality.

I agree but as for MDI and Windowing, desktop environment is same just faster and no start button. You will see the Start Page as much as you see your Start Menu today. Rarely. Yeah, search is irritating and less efficient and not unified but you can ESC back to desktop, same as if you stop a Start Menu search today. It's really not that bad. The Metro apps, yeah, they're weak so far.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing