locked
Limitation of Metro Style

    General discussion

  • Last Year I installed Windows Developer Preview. I found a Big Mistake from Microsoft i.e. When I installed Microsoft office 2010 and Windows Media Player Classic etc, it add all apps to Metro. I never used Access, One Note, Share Point etc etc. So I removed all apps which were not useful for me. It takes a lot of time to remove all apps. It was just stating. When Beta version will come it will create a headache for me to remove all those apps like Norton Anti Virus, K-Lite codec apps, Nvidia Apps means to say there should be a proper way for adding automatically to Metro. Windows 8 Shouldn't add all apps Automatically to Metro. or Windows should automatically detect useful apps such as only "Norton.exe" instead of including all apps related to Norton like Uninstall.exe, update.exe etc. Who needs these stupid apps? There should be only those Metro apps which are in daily use.

    Thanks


    Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:52 PM

All replies

  • Hi Yogesh,

    when you install Office 2010, choose to install in a custom mode, installing only the applications you need, the rest will remain invisible on your disk. Removing an App from the Metro Screen isn't all that difficult, Right-click it, select to Unpin from the button that appears on the lower right side of your screen. You may not need an antivirus on your beta, WDP has a built in program called Windows Defender, which is quite similar to Microsoft Security Essentials.


    Irfan
    • Edited by Irfanfare Sunday, January 15, 2012 3:28 AM grammar
    Sunday, January 15, 2012 3:26 AM
  • I know its easy to unpin. But in starting, I installed lot of programs which create a little headache. Custom Installation isn't the solution.
    You may already know  some necessary programs in our daily life:
    1) Microsoft office (Create about 15 Metro Apps)
    2) Adobe Reader (2 to 3 Metro Apps)
    3) Anti Virus (About 5)
    4) Graphics Card Driver (About 8 Metro Apps)
    5) Winrar/ winzip (about 3 Metro Apps)
    6) Internet Download Manager (2 to 5 Metro Apps)
    7) Media Player Classic (>15 Metro Apps in which only "mpc-hc.exe" is of use in our daily life.

    This one is a little demo. 
    Choice is yours. I am not Window Developer. I am just user who is providing feedback.

    Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:57 PM
  • I too have been looking at WDP but from a desktop point of view. I did think of starting to program again but decided I was too long in the tooth for such things. When WDP expires I can simply reformat that drive and install the beta.

    However, there must be plenty of youngsters who have grabbed this opportunity to learn to program to create Metro apps, and Metro apps is what Microsoft will want. When WDP expires where do these youngsters go and what do they use. Are there plans to have a free developer platform available, even though it might not be an operating system as such.

    Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:07 PM
  • Is officially Metro  gui not installable? Because is a very bad gui for desktop pc's, it works only for touch or tablets not for powerusers and their pc's!
    Monday, January 16, 2012 7:52 PM
  • Note that this is pre-Beta version and is developer preview. It is just to get idea about Metro and upcoming feature of Windows. Windows Product group are working on features and experiance and you will see a lot of new features in future releases.
    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:15 PM
  • Is officially Metro  gui not installable? Because is a very bad gui for desktop pc's, it works only for touch or tablets not for powerusers and their pc's!


    according to this site:

    http://winunleaked.tk/2012/01/windows-server-code-named-8-beta/

    everyone must use Metro (Desktop, server, tablet):

    Server come with Metro Start Screen, old start menu is kicked from the code.


    "A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code"

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:17 PM
  • This (Pic) is the just a demo of my issue. Mostly files are of K-Lite Codec. 

    Means to say, it will create a lot of headache who Loves Software. Who install 25+ Programs in his computer.

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:20 PM
  • I would have to disagree. its is a great desktop tool. Metro is just the "Start Menu". You have the option of going to the "Desktop" and running apps from traditional shortcuts  there...
    Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:44 PM
  • These are just program shortcuts, delete the ones you don't want or organize them into groups for the App.
    Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:45 PM
  • Yogesh, (or can I call you Yogi since you only want the bear essentials in the start menu), I totally agree with you regarding all the excess rubbish that is put into the Metro start menu. Unfortunately Microsoft have it fixed in their minds that everyone is going to love Metro and neither you or I will change it. In my opinion all desktop apps should on the desktop (where else) and Metro apps should be in the Start menu.

    I see you have MediaInfo crossed out. A very useful program that for looking at the properties of media files, easy to right click on a file and select it on the desktop but how do you use it in Metro when only one screen can be seen at a time. If it does not work in Metro THEN WHY PUT IT THERE.

    I have not done much with the DP and am just waiting for the beta. Without digging too deep the only obvious redeeming features seem to be the Task Manager and better memory management. One of my video editors uses far less memory (or at least releases old memory) and more use of the CPU. This is why I asked about your games although they would be more GPU intensive.

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:02 PM
  • 1) Of course u can call me Yogi.. My friends call me yogi but spelling is "Yogy"

    2) I love Metro. I just want that PC should automatically detect which is most important app. if i am installing Media Player Classic then it should add "mpc.exe" only to metro. I am not against Metro. I always love New features. Thats why I Installed WDP. 

    Monday, January 30, 2012 7:55 AM
  • First of all...  Windows wouldn't be able to detect which application is the "important" one as that would be a subjective thing.  What is important to you might not be important to me and vice-versa.

     

    Secondly, that pic you shared here is a testament to what is wrong with the metro start screen.  This is exactly why people are asking to keep desktop on the desktop and metro in metro.

    If microsoft wants to fix this issue, then they're gonna have to give desktop applications a way to also represent themselves with a usefull metro tile (and then windows CAN detect which exe to show on the start screen).

    But then, you no longer see a difference between a metro app and a desktop application, which would be very weird.

    I'm still of the opinion that the system is fundamentally flawed.

    Monday, January 30, 2012 9:09 AM
  • Bear in mind that the installers that created these shortcuts were for the most part developed for windows 7, and expected a hierarchichal folder structure. When developers of these apps/programs create a windows 8 version, I'm sure that they will consider this in their installers. This isn't an issue that windows need to fix, It's a new installer paradigm that developers will adapt to.
    Monday, January 30, 2012 9:30 AM
  • Gentlemen, how does it differ from what we had for years? The case is much like what we had with Start menu before. The same shortcut clutter here, the only thing is that shortcuts are now bigger.

    What if you go to %ProgramData%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs and remove unnecessary *.lnk files? Would it work?


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...
    Monday, January 30, 2012 10:20 AM
  •  It's a new installer paradigm that developers will adapt to

    The problem with this is that msft didn't provide a new paradigm to deal with it.

    All those extra exe's are there for a reason and they won't be going away.

    Msft should have given us a new installer paradigm for desktop applications.  In turn, that would have also enable desktop applications for windows 8 to be installable through the store (instead of the store merely providing a link to a website where you can download the setup).

     

    But they didn't.  So developers won't adapt to anything, since there is nothing to adapt to.

     

    Monday, January 30, 2012 2:24 PM
  • Gentlemen, how does it differ from what we had for years? The case is much like what we had with Start menu before. The same shortcut clutter here, the only thing is that shortcuts are now bigger.

    What if you go to %ProgramData%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs and remove unnecessary *.lnk files? Would it work?


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...

    That folder is for the Start menu, not the Start screen.

    I believe things could have been solved long ago if Microsoft redesigned Windows Installer as an Aero Wizard with the introduction of Vista and/or 7 (since most installers are designed as wizards) and then make options to create shortcuts in the Desktop, Start menu/Start screen, taskbar pinned items and/or Quick Launch bar to be obligatory in every installation/repair process and allow the user to pick which shortcuts does s/he want to be added to each location. Better yet, just design it so the important executables are the only ones exposed in the installer and allow the user to choose whether s/he wants them added to those locations or not.

    Should Windows Installer be better designed and perhaps they would've succeeded in making it the standard installer on Windows, when it comes to the Desktop UI. I'm annoyed by the likes of InstallShields, InstallAwares, InstallJammers, etc. Why do people keep reinventing the wheel if there's already a standard installer for the OS? Sure it has an ancient and outdated GUI (bleh, Windows 2000 look in 2012? And no, the manifests don't help it in looking better, modern and consistent) but that doesn't make it broken in terms of functionality.

    • Edited by SatoMew Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM Expanding my idea.
    Monday, January 30, 2012 4:03 PM
  • Hi, Sato. Completely agreed! That's what, I believe, they should start with: redesigning of Windows Installer! This technology just doesn't fit well nowadays (let's keep quiet on that it didn't work well before...).

    Where are the notorious APPX bundles? I believed MSFT was about to adapt XAP files from Windows Phone to Windows 8. Did they do it?

    Why do we have to have all these error-prone "Windows Installer is collecting information..." actions combined with poorly written custom actions which you can't evade using to when developing installers because Windows Installer technology does not provide for necessary options. And if it does, MSFT should get devs learned to it.  Why can't they make it easy for the end-user to install applications, much like it is implemented on Windows Phone? Why all these dependencies all that Windows Installer clutter which you have to cope with and pray that no of your files gets deleted, because should you accidentally delete one of DLLs, you won't be able to remove the application due to Windows Installer dependencies? Why all these Windows Installer CleanUP tools, the need to mess up with registry? All these Install-* which are most bells and whistles and nothing else to it?

    I think setup architecture in Windows needs a complete redesign! Indeed, why don't they make it possible to run apps without installing, just a click-n-run way where you could remove an application by just deleting its APPX file? I believe this scheme is possible in managed code, am I wrong?

    I hope that little by little, this will be implemented in Windows 8. At least, they implemented it on Windows Phone. Go compare setup experience on Windows Phone with that one on Windows Mobile --- it is heaven and hell. It's really convenient to install applications on Windows Phone! I believe we'll get something like push-install from Windows Marketplace soon.


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...

    Monday, January 30, 2012 4:38 PM
  • Gentlemen, how does it differ from what we had for years? The case is much like what we had with Start menu before. The same shortcut clutter here, the only thing is that shortcuts are now bigger.

    What if you go to %ProgramData%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs and remove unnecessary *.lnk files? Would it work?


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...

    That folder is for the Start menu, not the Start screen.

    I believe things could have been solved long ago if Microsoft redesigned Windows Installer as an Aero Wizard with the introduction of Vista and/or 7 (since most installers are designed as wizards) and then make options to create shortcuts in the Desktop, Start menu/Start screen, taskbar pinned items and/or Quick Launch bar to be obligatory in every installation/repair process and allow the user to pick which shortcuts does s/he want to be added to each location. Better yet, just design it so the important executables are the only ones exposed in the installer and allow the user to choose whether s/he wants them added to those locations or not.

    Should Windows Installer be better designed and perhaps they would've succeeded in making it the standard installer on Windows, when it comes to the Desktop UI. I'm annoyed by the likes of InstallShields, InstallAwares, InstallJammers, etc. Why do people keep reinventing the wheel if there's already a standard installer for the OS? Sure it has an ancient and outdated GUI (bleh, Windows 2000 look in 2012? And no, the manifests don't help it in looking better, modern and consistent) but that doesn't make it broken in terms of functionality.

    I'm sorry but I must disagree with your comment about the folder. The Start Menu folders do in fact work for the Start Screen and I use them regularly to add applications that don't have Start Menu shortcuts to the Start Screen. You are able to delete Start Screen shortcut tiles from there.

     

    Also, instead of detecting the important applications or changing the current installation paradigm, why not just blacklist the standard uninstaller/crap filenames like

    Setup.exe

    Uninstall.exe

    Unins0000.exe

     

    etc? It makes more sense to do that then to catalog every single "important" executable. Although I do agree with you, Windows Installer should be better designed, InstallShield and the like are horrible and don't fit in with the OS well.

     

    But I must digress back to my original reason for commenting, the Program Data and AppData folders for the Start menu do very much work for the start screen.

    Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:12 AM
  • @Mirador1987  
    You are right... 
    It's a new installer paradigm that developers will adapt to.
    Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:09 PM
  • Gentlemen, how does it differ from what we had for years? The case is much like what we had with Start menu before. The same shortcut clutter here, the only thing is that shortcuts are now bigger.

    What if you go to %ProgramData%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs and remove unnecessary *.lnk files? Would it work?


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...

    That folder is for the Start menu, not the Start screen.

    I believe things could have been solved long ago if Microsoft redesigned Windows Installer as an Aero Wizard with the introduction of Vista and/or 7 (since most installers are designed as wizards) and then make options to create shortcuts in the Desktop, Start menu/Start screen, taskbar pinned items and/or Quick Launch bar to be obligatory in every installation/repair process and allow the user to pick which shortcuts does s/he want to be added to each location. Better yet, just design it so the important executables are the only ones exposed in the installer and allow the user to choose whether s/he wants them added to those locations or not.

    Should Windows Installer be better designed and perhaps they would've succeeded in making it the standard installer on Windows, when it comes to the Desktop UI. I'm annoyed by the likes of InstallShields, InstallAwares, InstallJammers, etc. Why do people keep reinventing the wheel if there's already a standard installer for the OS? Sure it has an ancient and outdated GUI (bleh, Windows 2000 look in 2012? And no, the manifests don't help it in looking better, modern and consistent) but that doesn't make it broken in terms of functionality.

    I'm sorry but I must disagree with your comment about the folder. The Start Menu folders do in fact work for the Start Screen and I use them regularly to add applications that don't have Start Menu shortcuts to the Start Screen. You are able to delete Start Screen shortcut tiles from there.

     

    Also, instead of detecting the important applications or changing the current installation paradigm, why not just blacklist the standard uninstaller/crap filenames like

    Setup.exe

    Uninstall.exe

    Unins0000.exe

     

    etc? It makes more sense to do that then to catalog every single "important" executable. Although I do agree with you, Windows Installer should be better designed, InstallShield and the like are horrible and don't fit in with the OS well.

     

    But I must digress back to my original reason for commenting, the Program Data and AppData folders for the Start menu do very much work for the start screen.

    Indeed you are correct. I thought it only affected the Start Menu, since if RPEnabled in HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer is set to 0 or 2 (with value 2 creating somewhat of a balance as it disables the Immersive UI, or "Metro interface", but allows certain components that depend on it to work, like the new Task Manager), the shortcuts there were deleted from the Start menu (yes, the old Start menu, not the Start screen of the Immersive UI).

    I believe installers in Windows should always use the Windows Installer and come in .msi files (or .msp files if the installer is related to a patch). Microsoft should also overhaul the UI of Windows Installer and make it an Aero Wizard with the options I mentioned above. Furthermore, I'm astonished how many files of the sorts you mentioned (Setup.exe, Uninstall.exe, etc.) are just bootstraps that extract the real installer, which does come as a Windows Installer file (.msi)! That's why I even use software like 7-Zip or PeaZip most of the times to check if those files are just containers of the real installaton files and in case I can directly extract the files where I want them, I do it and just run the real installer. So in a way, many installers are already created and do use Windows Installer but it isn't exactly the same as creating a unified installation experience, in which all installers use it and don't create a variant of it and that come in an universal format (.msi).

    I think we should send feedback on this to Microsoft using the Send Feedback tool. I will personally suggest them to urgently overhaul the Windows Installer UI to make it look like an Aero Wizard and use the new icons they already have present in the system files as well as requesting that all installers must come with basic options that give users control about paths, components and shortcuts that the installer attempts to create, add and/or modify during the process. Want an example of an Aero Wizard-like installer? Take a look at Trillian's. It's that kind of UI that the modern Windows Installer should have as most installers are wizards and it matches the system wizards perfectly. And with that, it would create a single, universal and stable standard of Desktop installers for Windows.

    • Edited by SatoMew Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:14 PM
    Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:09 PM