locked
Disable the Metro UI

    General discussion

  • This is a thread that I created a long time ago. I can't remember what I originally posted, but I belive that I asked if it would ever be possible to disable the Metro UI. I quoted a specific section of Steven Sinofsky's blog, and then created a revised verison of that quote which stated what I wanted to see. At some point, I decided that I wanted to reduce the amount of threads I had and decided to replace this opening with generic text and a title of "Thread Management." However, this thread may prove valuable in the future, and I have decided to restore a portion of the opening. Based on the quote below, this is likely how I originally started this thread:

    1. On Steven Sinofsky's blog, he said the following:

    "And if you want to stay permanently immersed in that Metro world, you will never see the desktop—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there! This is Windows reimagined."

    "And if you don’t want to do any of those “PC” things, then you don’t have to and you’re not paying for them in memory, battery life, or hardware requirements. If you do want or need this functionality, then you can switch to it with ease and fluidity because Windows is right there. Essentially, you can think of the Windows desktop as just another app." This is an exact quote from Sinofsky's blog.

    2. These concepts make sense on tablets, where they have been more successful without desktop UI's than they have been with the desktop, but this makes no sense to me on desktop computers. In my opinion, these quotes should be changed when working on desktop PC's. Metro on the desktop seems to have enough fundamental flaws that only minor changes can't disguise the fact that desktop Metro is more of a reversal in formula (conversion from tablets to PC's rather than from PC's to tablets) than an upgrade. Is there any possibility of these (see below) happening in the future? I have modified these quotes to reflect what I want to see from Windows 8 on desktops and laptops.

    3. Unlike the quotes above, the quotes below are what I want to see happen in Windows 8 on the desktop, not an exact copy of Sinofsky's words.

    "And if you want to stay permanently immersed in the desktop world, you will never see Metro—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there! This is Windows, made to work the way you want."

    "And if you don’t want to do any of those “cell phone” things, then you don’t have to and you’re not paying for them in memory, battery life, or hardware requirements. If you do want or need this functionality, then you can switch to it with ease and fluidity because the Metro UI is right there. Essentially, you can think of Metro as just another program."

    4. Keep in mind, I'm not just asking for a "turn off Metro after using it at least once" scenario, but an option to let Metro run like a program launched from the Start menu given to users and OEM's during installation, or even automatically configuring Windows like this on regular computers. Is there any chance that this change will be made in the future?

     

    • Changed type WindowsVista567 Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:00 PM The question has not been answered, nor has anyone made any attempt to answer it. This question will probably not be answered through the forum.
    • Changed type WindowsVista567 Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:00 PM I would still like to see an answer to my question.
    • Changed type WindowsVista567 Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:54 PM After closer examination, I see it might be better to leave this is a discussion.
    • Edited by WindowsVista567 Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:57 AM
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 5:54 PM

All replies

  • This is not really a question, I'd suggest changing the type of this post to discussion instead of question.

    Regards,

    Dylan Meeus


    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:12 PM
  • 1. On Steven Sinofsky's blog, he said the following:

    "And if you want to stay permanently immersed in that Metro world, you will never see the desktop—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there! This is Windows reimagined."

    "And if you don’t want to do any of those “PC” things, then you don’t have to and you’re not paying for them in memory, battery life, or hardware requirements. If you do want or need this functionality, then you can switch to it with ease and fluidity because Windows is right there. Essentially, you can think of the Windows desktop as just another app." This is an exact quote from Sinofsky's blog.

    2. These concepts make sense on tablets, where they have been more successful without desktop UI's than they have been with the desktop, but this makes no sense to me on desktop computers. In my opinion, these quotes should be changed when working on desktop PC's. Metro on the desktop seems to have enough fundamental flaws that only minor changes can't disguise the fact that desktop Metro is more of a reversal in formula (conversion from tablets to PC's rather than from PC's to tablets) than an upgrade. Is there any possibility of these (see below) happening in the future? I have modified these quotes to reflect what I want to see from Windows 8 on desktops and laptops.

    3. Unlike the quotes above, the quotes below are what I want to see happen in Windows 8 on the desktop, not an exact copy of Sinofsky's words.

    "And if you want to stay permanently immersed in the desktop world, you will never see Metro—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there! This is Windows, made to work the way you want."

    "And if you don’t want to do any of those “cell phone” things, then you don’t have to and you’re not paying for them in memory, battery life, or hardware requirements. If you do want or need this functionality, then you can switch to it with ease and fluidity because the Metro UI is right there. Essentially, you can think of Metro as just another program."

    4. Keep in mind, I'm not just asking for a "turn off Metro after using it at least once" scenario, but an option to let Metro run like a program launched from the Start menu given to users and OEM's during installation, or even automatically configuring Windows like this on regular computers. Is there any chance that this change will be made in the future?





    I agree 100%
    And I'd like to see an unambiguous answer to this question too.

     

    • Edited by Site-Jumper Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:27 PM
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:25 PM
  • That's good to hear. I'm not the only one who thinks this change should be made. On most of the other forums I have posted on, it's either an "all or none" scenario, at least, that's the impression I got from topics like "Poll - Metro on the Desktop." Metro on desktops doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, given that it is bascially a reversal in the Tablet vs. PC formula we have been seeing for the past 10 years. We don't need a complete reversal, but a solution that works well for both, and if the UI designed for desktops is optional on tablets, shouldn't the UI designed for tablets be optional on desktops? If usability of Windows 8 is measured in click counts, it fails the test miserably compared to Windows 7 or even Windows 98.


    You're absolutely right.

    That is why I would like to see the answer from MS to your question.

    If Windows 8 becomes what you are suggesting, I remain interested.

    If the Metro interface will be imposed no matter the hardware it will be installed upon, I unhook and forget forever about Windows 8 on my desktops, laptops and netbooks.

    In other words :

    I want to be able to boot my machines right into the Windows 7 desktop interface with a Windows 7 startmenu and the Windows 7 superbar.
    Access to the Metro interface should appear in the Windows 7 start menu if I want to use it occasionally.

    • Edited by Site-Jumper Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:58 PM
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:48 PM
  • The fundamental issue is that Microsoft management clearly does not want to support two different systems, but rather just one Windows that is the same everywhere.  I honestly believe there are people who think that the whole world can move to touch screen zero chrome maximized apps, and all us dinosaurs who have powerful desktop systems will just have to go find another "geeky" operating system.

     

    I only today learned about the Tablet Simulator application in Windows 8...

    C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Windows Simulator\Microsoft.Windows.Simulator.exe

    Given that this app facilitates the bootup of a virtual Metro system, complete with touch emulation and even debugging integration, AND that we know that there's a "Red Pill disable" registry key, it's VERY CLEAR that Microsoft could provide a desktop operating system that has the capability of running "virtual Metro" as well as supporting development.

     

    It's also VERY CLEAR from Steven Sinofsky's comments that this simply ISN'T THE DIRECTION MICROSOFT WANTS TO GO.

    We're all shaking our heads over this.  Yes, they COULD be that BOLD.  It's scary but true.

     

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:55 PM
  • Thing is, I'm sure they believe they know the direction they NEED to go better than we do.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:19 PM
  • In truth, I hope not.  The need for access by those of us who write software could be met.  The Metro Interface would have to be expanded to encompass functions left better to a command line.  The ability to issue a single command at a command prompt and get a task done without 5 or 6 menu screens flying by means that time is saved and money made.  Keeping the more complex methods of operation available to the developer, administrator, database administrator, or common user, while in contact with a tech., can only put more money in the businesses pocket.
    Jerry Babiome
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:43 PM
  •   This is my take on it, it seems to me that Microsoft is trying to play catch-up with iOS, and Android, at the traditional desktop users expense. I like the desktop improvements, such as the Ribbon in Explorer, native image & vhd mounting, ect. But really, "Windows 8" with the "Metro" interface on a Traditional Desktop is a nightmare. If I used a Tablet or a touchscreen all in one toy, well then I see the benefit of Metro. I understand this is a Developer Preview so we can start learning how to make apps for Metro. So it's pointless complaining about Metro, hopefully what we see now is not what we will get when it RTM's.

     So in closing what I am saying is obvious, Microsoft please let your CUSTOMERS choose what type of interface they want to use/buy.

    Monday, September 26, 2011 2:59 AM
  • My hope is that Microsoft's reason for forcing Metro onto desktop users was to make developers 'think metro' i.e. immerse yourself in the world your users are going to be living in. I know this is a very tablet centric viewpoint and I am deliberately ignoring desktop application developers - you already rule the world in almost every application category, where Microsoft are (were) weak is in the tablet space and as a consumer item windows tablets will live or die based on the number of metro apps available and for ARM tablets my understanding is that it's Metro or nothing.

    If that was Microsoft's intention then I think it has backfired a little as there are more desktop/laptop users than tablet users and all the good feedback from the tablet folk is being drowned out by the sheer volume of PC users. I think this could easily be reversed by implementing your suggestions in the next release/patch and simply asking the user at next logon 'Are you Metro or Classic?' we all know both are in there but let us chose which is the dominant one. They could even keep tabs on the number of metro vs classic apps that you run and occasionally prompt you to reaffirm your choice if the balance sways one way or the other.

    I also strongly agree that Metro apps should be runnable in a window (even if its a predefined window size e.g. common tablet resolutions) because if I were thinking of writing commercial metro apps and there was a chance that even a small percentage of those zillions of PC users out there might throw £4.99 my way for my app would be a big incentive to write for the fledgling platform.

    I've read Steve's blog and it's understandable that he's focused on / excited by Metro (it is after all a very credible tablet UI) but he needs to set the record straight and soon.

     

     

     

    Monday, September 26, 2011 10:59 PM
  • I totally agree. I find Metro UI completely pointless for advanced/Enterprise users. For home users I find it OK as I expect to have a computer in my house with touch-screen, but for working, is the worst thing I've seen. However, the advantages such as on the new boot up time in the real core of Windows I think they are great. But please, Microsoft, let me disable Metro UI.
    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:48 PM
  • Microsoft WANTS to guide us all thoroughly to and through Metro.

    That's where people will install and use the billions of little stupid apps that they imagine they will make so much money off distributing through their App Store.

     

    Do you really think Microsoft is going to provide you configuration settings that will allow you to not see Metro?

     

    That said, I can well imagine there could be future 3rd party software that will do its best to help you achieve your goal.  I think the wheels must be already turning furiously in the ClassicShell project.

     

    -Noel

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:29 PM
  • It's not impossible for Microsoft to do this - especially if Metro is a flop in the beta or if there is no consumer interest in Metro apps for non-tablet devices. Besides, as far as I am concerned, if a user environment cannot do everything the desktop does, there is no reason to use it, and Microsoft's own choices as far as what goes into the Metro UI and what doesn't prove that it can't replace the desktop. Look at Ubuntu as an example of an operating system that seems to have been abandoned by its existing users - if Unity doesn't work, why would Metro work with serious users? Metro may be good for Facebook users, but I've talked to regular people who are not "geeks" by any stretch of the imagination, and they don't like Metro either.
    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:37 PM
  • Microsoft could clearly do anything they want.  They have so much money they could reasonably advance computing into new realms.  But what they really appear to want is just to make even more money without working too hard at it.

    Have you worked for a big company?  You surely know enough marketspeak to realize:

    • "Bold":  "Nobody is going to like it but we're doing it anyway because business executives are now in charge, and if Apple could get rich off their App Store, well then we should be able to do so too."

     

    • "Reimagined" == "We threw away all that old, complicated, hard-to-maintain code because it was SO last century and all the engineers got old and retired anyway".

     

    We may well have already seen the pinnacle of computing.  :(

    -Noel



    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:50 PM
  • I'm sorry to say I haven't worked for any big companies.

    As for your statement about the pinnacle of computing, I wonder if that is correct, in terms of PC's that aren't tablets. I liked Windows Vista a lot. That's why I chose "WindowsVista567" as my display name - in fact, I think it's better than Windows 7 and that Windows 7's appeal is purely psychological and that the actual operating system is a step backward from Vista. I wasn't expecting Microsoft to leap back to the Windows 1.0 era with Metro, though.

    I recently had the opportunity to use a computer with Windows 95 OSR2. While the Start Menu and Taskbar were a huge improvement over the Program Manager, Windows 95 feels incomplete even in OSR2. I never realized how much I have come to rely on ideas for the Start Menu that were introduced over the years. Perhaps Metro is bad because it hasn't had 16 years to evolve, but a user experience that replaces all or part of an old one shouldn't be inferior to what was there before.

    Your statements about "Bold" sound correct from my perspective - Microsoft claims that 88% of app launches do not originate from the Start Menu (and they may be right), but I rely on the Start Menu when I use Windows, and all of the functionality that I depend on in Windows has been removed from the Start Screen in Windows 8. Apparently, Microsoft didn't think anyone was using it. Maybe I'm the only one that actually opens Computer, Control Panel, Help and Support, Documents, Music, the username folder, and Videos from the Start Menu.

    I'm wondering about your "bold" and "reimagined" statements, though. Have you ever worked for a big company? Your "ProDigital Software" sounds like a big name, but the website looks like it was coded entirely by hand.





    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:11 PM
  • Yes, I worked in Dilbert's world for 30+ years before starting my own firm, which I am currently growing.

    I've grown impervious to the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome.

    -Noel


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:40 PM
    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:33 PM
  • I've grown impervious to the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome.


    What does that mean?

    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:50 PM
  • It means that I don't care how many people hail the "new" Metro interface as "new and improved" using such words as "bold" and "reimagined", that I still think (as I think you do) that it's obviously silly and a serious degradation of something that was growing to be quite good.  But alas we may not have much influence over those driven not by the desire to advance computing but by profit motives.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 AM
  • But alas we may not have much influence over those driven not by the desire to advance computing but by profit motives.

    Microsoft won't make much money off of Windows 8 if people don't buy it. They will make even less money if those who do buy Windows 8 avoid buying Metro-style apps (which may happen for non-tablet users). I experimented with high contrast color schemes and high DPI settings to achieve a "Metro-style" look for Office 2007, and it is ugly and hard to use - not what I want to see in an operating system. I also don't see the point of having a Metro-style IE when I can press F11 and have a "chromeless" experience right now that works better than Windows 8.

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:20 AM
  • Never underestimate the general public.  Do you really think the grand majority of them are going to do research or check to see whether it actually works before buying it?  Most still have a huge amount of disposible income (just go see the shoulder to shoulder crowds at Walt Disney World if you doubt this), and Microsoft has a good name right now.

    Will the serious users upgrade?  Perhaps not.  Many didn't upgrade to Vista and are finally moving up to Windows 7, which will carry the load for a while...  Perhaps Microsoft thinks now is the perfect time to get less serious about making a "to work" operating system and instead reap profits from casual users with their toys.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:31 PM
  • To address your comment about the general public: they will revert to an older PC or return the new one to the store if it doesn't work as well as their old one. Look at what happened to Windows Vista.

    I just read something interesting from Paul Thurott on the Windows SuperSite:

    "The emerging trend is to make PCs less like PCs and more like devices. They'll come in fun, multi-touch form factors, like the iPad copying slates that we'll be swimming in a year from now, and a new category of laptops called Ultrabooks. We'll focus less on specs, because specs will matter less -- as they already do --and more on utility. Battery life will be king for mobile devices of all kinds, not processing power.

    These devices might ultimately do less than the beefy computers of today. And that, too, is by design. Even Windows is actually moving backward in some ways. Released two years ago, Windows 7 has the same hardware requirements as Windows Vista, which shipped back in 2006. And Windows 8, due in 2012, actually has lower hardware requirements. In fact, Microsoft has quietly detuned the Aero UI in Windows 8 to be less sophisticated than that in Windows 7. On purpose."

    I don't want that!  PC's are supposed to evolve, not jump back to 1981. I am still strongly focused on my computer's specifications. I have an old Dell Inspiron 531S that might be perfectly usable with Windows 7, but I upgraded to a PC with a 2.8 GHz Lynnfield Core i5 because I wanted more local processing power. Windows needs a special edition for desktop PC's - one that takes advantage of powerful, next-generation hardware and ignores "battery life" on computers without batteries. I'm not saying that Microsoft should abandon energy efficiency, but I think that Microsoft should be less focused on battery life and more focused on making an operating system that works well on desktops. My PC is a real computer, not a toy. I don't have a Facebook account, so why would I want a PC that is focused on "social" ideas and connectivity?. This basic trend in the consumer electronics market is terrible - I hate this new "form over function" idea. Much of the functionality of Windows 8 is broken, and I'm not convinced that Microsoft even sees it, despite the high number of comments and forum posts from users.

    (Image removed by uploader.)


    I have removed the image from this post. I do not want this image to be copied or widely distributed, so I have removed it; I don't want to contribute too much content to the Internet.

    • Edited by WindowsVista567 Friday, December 02, 2011 2:07 AM Removed Microsoft Word image
    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:29 PM
  • I don't want that!

    I agree 110%.  But we are computer people, not the general public wielding their disposable income en masse.

    OF COURSE Microsoft sees all this feedback from thoughtful, educated, well-meaning computer people who would like Windows to continue to grow, but writing serious software is HARD! 

    The businessmen would rather make more money by working less hard and selling to bunches people who don't know the difference.  I think we're feeling, here, the loss of Bill Gates' direct leadership.  We live in a time of loss of leadership on a number of fronts, actually.  I wonder what will become of all this...

    -Noel

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:52 PM
  •  I think we're feeling, here, the loss of Bill Gates' direct leadership.


    Maybe Bill Gates will come back and Microsoft will have an Apple moment like what happened with Steve Jobs.

    How did you like the Microsoft Word picture?

    Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:01 PM
  • How did you like the Microsoft Word picture?


    To be honest, it hurt my eyes so I didn't study it much.

    -Noel

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:26 AM

  • To be honest, it hurt my eyes so I didn't study it much.

    -Noel

    That's basically the point. It looks so bad that no one would ever want to use it. But it does resemble Metro-style design. It's hard to believe that it could even be possible with the real Microsoft Office 2007 (and all I did was change a few visual settings).

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:55 AM
  • We have no idea what a Metro desktop Word would look like, but I doubt it would look like that.  Especially the color scheme.

    However, we do know what a Metro Office would look like on a phone:

    http://www.wpcentral.com/software-review-windows-phone-7-office-hub

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:59 PM
  • @WindowsVista567, @Noel Carboni

    In spite of the fact that you complain about Metro being the prevalent technology integrated Windows 8, did you give e.g. your Start screen a try at all? I did. And I appreciate the way it works and that it offers me space to put my fav apps there (e.g. Visual Studio, Opera, Notepad++, LibreOffice, an so on). Thus I can start my work immediately after start-up. Why do you need the Desktop to start from?

    I am wondering why you are complaining? No functionality is removed (you can do everything which you did before with your PC), even functionality is added, and all that by consuming less power.

    Complaining just because of some tweaks regarding the user interface? There is something else, isn't it?

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:52 PM
  • Yes I have tried it and this is why I am complaining.

    I want to boot straight onto the desktop. There I normally have all the icons or means to access whatever I want. The icons are small and unobtrusive and there is more than enough room for my needs.

    Instead it opens in the Metro start panel. Now my eyesight is not the best and I enlarged the text size so that I can more easily read the forum for instance. Unfortunately this has reduced the Metro icons from 5 deep to 3 deep (on a 22 inch screen?) so that I inevitably need to scroll to find what I want. If it is not a favourite then it means going to the search layer where the only search sequence is alphabetical - if you recall the exact name.

    So you keep a few favourites on the start menu. Have you installed many apps? My last one put 2 icons on the desktop but it put 9 (yes, nine) icons in the start menu. So I then had to go through unpinning the ones I did not need.

    After opening a program I find I need notepad or control panel so it is back into the Metro start menu again. It should not be nescessary.
    My favourites are going on the desktop taskbar and I have something at the right hand side of the taskbar called 'Desktop'. If I click that then most things I need are there.

    For Desktop work I do not want Metro and I do not want to see Metro. Goodbye Metro.

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 7:58 PM
  • @I-DotNET

    No, a Metro-style Microsoft Office would probably not look exactly like that - a true Metro-style Office would probably have about the same amount of features as the Office Web Apps and have the same usability problems as the sample apps. Update: I have replaced the Microsoft Word image with another one.



    Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:01 PM
  • @Sven R. Kunze

    Yes, I did try the Start Screen. I also tried the Ribbon in Office 2007 before I bought it. I had completey different experiences with each program. In Office, I was amazed by the power and flexibility that was in Office 2007 and how easy it was to use. With Windows 8, I was disappointed at Microsoft's failure to design a decent UI for non-touch devices. Also, in my Windows usage, everything starts from the Start Menu. I launch most of my computer's programs from the MFU list and access folders through the links on the right side of the Start Menu. This functionality has been removed from the Start Screen, forcing me to click on the Windows Explorer link in the taskbar or the Start Screen (which is a poor substitute for the old Start Menu's abilities).

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:04 PM
  • @WindowsVista567:

    Please read my post again.  I didn't say it would look exactly like that.  In fact, my first sentence plainly states the exact opposite, "we have no idea what a Metro desktop Word would look like."

    I took a look at the Office Web Apps through SkyDrive and it doesn't look Metro at all.  In fact, it looks a lot like the current desktop version.

    That style UI would never work on a tablet.  I know this because I've already tried it.  I have an iPad and I can remote desktop (using Splashtop) into my Windows PCs.  The toolbar buttons in Word are way too small.  Even the large buttons are too small to be used effectively with your fingers.

    And this is one of the interesting problems that I've seen nobody address.  How do you create a single UI that - from both a usability and asthetic standpoint - works and looks great on both a 7" screen with a touch interface and 23" screen with a keyboard and mouse?

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:25 PM
  • @I-DotNET

    You misunderstood me. When I said "No, a Metro-style Microsoft Office would probably not look exactly like that," I was agreeing with your statement that my picture was not the best example of a Metro-style Office. Also, I did not say that a Metro-style Office would have a UI that was like the Office Web Apps. What I meant was that a Metro-style Office would have the same amount of features as the Office Web Apps and the same usability problems that the Metro-style apps in the Developer Preview have. Apparently, I was not clear about what "sample apps" I was referring to.

    To address something else you said:

     And this is one of the interesting problems that I've seen nobody address. How do you create a single UI that - from both a usability and asthetic standpoint - works and looks great on both a 7" screen with a touch interface and 23" screen with a keyboard and mouse?

     It's impossible, but Microsoft is trying anyway - and that is one of Windows 8's biggest problems and the reason why Metro doesn't work for me. It's also why people complain about having the desktop on tablets. On my desktop computer, Metro is a problem. On tablets, the desktop is a problem. Microsoft says that Windows 8 means "no compromises," but using a touch-first UI with the mouse is a major usability problem. The same is true of using a mouse-first UI with touch. Metro should not exist on desktop computers and the desktop UI should not exist on tablets.


    Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:34 PM
  • @WindowsVista567, @Noel Carboni

    In spite of the fact that you complain about Metro being the prevalent technology integrated Windows 8, did you give e.g. your Start screen a try at all?

    Of course I did.

    So far, I haven't found anything I don't already do better with the hierarchial menu structure I have maintained with Windows 7 and earlier since the Start Menu first came out.  I prefer to choose things logically, like Start - Applications - Graphics and Imaging - Axialis - Icon Workshop instead of scrolling sideways through screen after screen looking for it on big colored tiles.

    My experience is that most people don't organize their start menu or desktop hierarchially, but that doesn't say all of us shouldn't be able to.  I have no problem with Microsoft providing a dumbed-down experience for those who want it.  Just don't make it get in the way of the better experience some of us already have!

    Metro is a single-dimensional attempt to replace a multi-dimensional user interface. 

    It simply doesn't suit the task unless all you do is just a few things, one at a time, with your computer.  Some of us actually DO real, substantial multitasking, and being able to see the contents of multiple windows at a glance is essential.  I NEVER even use the Maximize function, because I have a big desktop that runs across several monitors.

    And, why would I want have to "leave the room" and look at an entirely new screen to start something new?  Maybe I'm relying on the data in my other active windows for context when I am going to my Start menu.  It's just silly to blitz the user with a screen replacement just to start something new.  I say "blitz", because not only does it replace the entire content of the first monitor, but the look and feel of what's there is in NO WAY integrated with what I was seeing on the desktop.  I *LIKE* being able to just keep my mind on something while working.

    Right now, in Windows 7, I have icons on my desktop for my most used apps, use Explorer's data-driven approach and drag and drop to access some things (e.g., images and media), and I rely on the Start menu for getting to the apps I don't use very often. 

    As a business owner, software developer, researcher, graphics professional, forum participant, etc. I do literally HUNDREDS of things on my computer.

    Metro seems built for people who do just THREE or FOUR, and leaves sophisticated users out in the cold.

    -Noel

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:46 PM
  • That's a little easier on the eyes, but in all seriousness the fonts aren't big enough, and you have way too many UI elements on the screen.

    The Metro byword is "oversimplified".

    -Noel

    Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:26 PM
  • @Noel Carboni

    I have removed the Microsoft Word image.

    Friday, December 02, 2011 2:09 AM