locked
The "RP" Hack and the Future of Windows 8

    General discussion

  • I, WindowsVista567, created this post under an account that has since been deleted. If you have any questions about this post, I will respond to them from the "WindowsVista567" account, as I no longer have access to this one. Visit the "WindowsVista567 - old account" profile page for more information. I have read about the Registry setting that will restore the Start menu in Windows 8, and I am wondering. I'm sure Microsoft didn't put this here by accident, so what is it for? Was it meant to hide the Start Screen in builds released earlier on, or is it part of some future option to disable the Metro interface? Even though changing settings for this in the Registry will disable most of what separates Windows 8 from Windows 7, this could be changed in the future. Is this left over from Windows 8's development cycle from previous pre-releases, or is this part of some future plan to let users disable Metro on the desktop?
    Monday, September 19, 2011 7:11 PM

All replies

  • The Windows Developer Preview is a pre-beta version of Windows 8 for developers, mostly for them to get familiar with how Metro works. It's likely that there will be many changes from the WDP to the RTM version, possible including a more familiar start menu for the desktop, but we will have to wait an see.

     

    Monday, September 19, 2011 7:25 PM
  • RP stands for Red Pill. Do some research on that and you will get what it means ;)

    Regards,

    Dylan Meeus


    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Monday, September 19, 2011 7:38 PM
  • I guess that the Metro will be disabable using a group policy at least. I doubt that the businesses will be open to allow it on their office computers. However, the way how much it will be customizable and the method for it is not yet finalized.

    RP means "red pill". The same name seems to have a tool which is likely used to install features which are not finalized yet or prepared for public. I guess they control this way what "new" binaries will be present and/or active in the installation image. Setting RPEnabled to zero than turn off all these new features that are already installed and everything fail back to the old behaviour so they will not unveil new features in demos before they want to show them. So the presenter may use that features all the day, but might them turn off when recording a demo or showing speaking at conferences.

    It might be also used when there is a bug which block normal use of the operating system. They simply disable all new (unstable) features and continue working without them.
    • Edited by MCCZ Monday, September 19, 2011 8:16 PM
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:08 PM
  • Interesting. Red Pill represents accepting the "painful truth of reality." Perhaps Microsoft knows Metro on the desktop is a bad idea?
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:19 PM
  • No I think it's more like this: people might be against metro now, but the customers will love it.
    We all have to face the fact that Metro UI will be the next big thing so we'll have to develop for it.
    After all; the applications we make have to serve others. We have to listen to what they want.

    Regards,

    Dylan Meeus


    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:21 PM
  • For sure, they have some opinion on it but they are also waiting how the community (we) will accept Metro and what they will complain about.

    Some user scenarios does not fit to Metro, for example an accountant, word, photoshop etc. so office workers would welcome desktop rather than Metro.

    I guess that the red pill point to an "unstable" / "incomplete" nature of features rather than to "bad idea".

    • Edited by MCCZ Monday, September 19, 2011 8:25 PM
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:22 PM
  • Wait a minute... we are the customers. At least, Microsoft wants us to be. I have showed Metro to others, and I haven't heard anybody say they like it outside of this forum and some news stories claiming that people like it. Besides, why would Microsoft include an option to disable Metro in the Registry if they didn't want people to use it? I am not a developer, yet I am using Windows 8 Developer Preview so I can provide feedback and see what is coming. Whether or not I am a "power user" depends on what you consider a power user to be. Just speaking from the perspective of a Windows user, I don't like Metro, and knowing how to use it doesn't make it any better.
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
  • Well this is just us speculating.
    But I believe there will be a control-panel option to disable Metro ;)

    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:24 PM
  • Wow. Everyone responded so fast that I couldn't keep up.  My "we are the customers" post was supposed to appear right after Dylan-Meeus's "customers will love it" post. Sorry if the layout of this thread is confusing.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:30 PM
  • Maybe you should narrow it down.
    Metro UI is good, on tablets and phones.
    But it lacks functionality on the desktop (/laptop).

    I think that's a better statement.

     


    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:32 PM
  • I wasn't trying to offend anyone. You're right. Metro is better on tablets and phones, but it doesn't make sense on the desktop. If tablets didn't exist, would there be any reason for using Metro on the desktop at all? This is exactly how Jensen Harris described Metro:

    "These apps are full-screen, they're beautiful, uh... they... are designed for touch, but of course they work great with mouse and keyboard as well, if that's what you have."

    This is the problem I have with Metro. Tower PC's, mice, keyboards, and other devices are not "legacy" devices and input methods, but Microsoft acts like they are. For some applications, they are the best methods possible. Metro's problem is that it takes a touch UI and adds a few extras to make it work with the desktop. History shows that design that works like this rarely works out well. It is always best to use programs, UI, etc. in their original format. That is why Windows 7 didn't work out well on tablets. That is why Metro doesn't work out well on desktops.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:39 PM
  • Also, I just enabled the Red Pill hack on my Windows 8 machine. As it turns out, a few options have been moved so that they exist ONLY in the Metro interface. For example, I can't find a way to access the "Full Reset" option from within the Control Panel. Some of the options for customization have been moved to the Metro control panel. No matter how you look at it, Windows 8 will need significant changes if it is to work in the real world. Hopefully, Microsoft will create a setup where it is possible to disable Metro and still use all of Windows 8's new features, even running Metro-style apps in a window.
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:58 PM
  • Taskmanager is different, the ribbon is away aswell and other win8 features

     


    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:59 PM
  • Actually, by enabling the hack and then turning RP back on, I was able to keep the Ribbon and the new Aero style without restoring the Start screen. It still looks and acts like Windows 8, but without the Start screen and Metro.
    Monday, September 19, 2011 9:06 PM
  • The problem with this registry hack is it completely disables Metro.  (At least on my pc it did.)

    So I would hope that Microsoft has the foresight to accomplish the below items:

     

    - Put a real Start Menu in the Desktop interface so it looks and works just like Windows 7.

    - Make it possible to switch between Desktop & Metro on the fly.

    - Give me the option of which interface I initially boot into.

     

    (I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want it to work this way.)

    Monday, September 19, 2011 9:26 PM
  • Setting RPEnabled value to 0 should not disable rest of the Windows 8 features like copy engine improvements etc. Each feature can be individually disable-able through Group Policy. A policy each for 1. Disabling Explorer ribbon. 2. Disable Start screen UI. 3. Disable new Task Manager and so on. Even better would be a way to make the desktop the default UI but switch to Metro on-demand (the reverse of what currently is allowed).
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:21 AM
  • Whatever you may say, I liked my Metro experience even on Desktop. No clutter! As mr. Einstein is supposed to have said, "everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler". It's simple and useful. That's how I treat it.
    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:52 AM
  • Simplicity can be a good thing, but there is such a thing as "too simple." To me, this best summarizes Windows 8 on the desktop, at least to a point. However, some elements of the UI have been moved to locations that make no sense, such as hiding Shut Down in an obscure Settings pane. After all the time I've spent using Windows 8 with Metro turned on, I still can't figure out the connection between Metro's files and the normal files. It's almost like trying to use two computers at once. As for the simplicity of Metro apps, I don't need full-screen apps with huge fonts that are incredibly feature-thin. If I wanted that, I'd do all of my computing on my iPod Touch. I ran up against the limitations of Metro IE right away, and the same thing happened with the other Metro apps, as well ast the Start Screen. Even once I figured out what I needed to do, the Start Screen seemed somewhat clunky, with basic options hidden or replaced with other attempts to duplicate other Windows functionality. In some ways, Metro on desktop computers actually reminds me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmN5eDIOJqY

    This video shows the game "Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis," a GameBoy Advance port of the original Sonic the Hedgehog. The overall reaction is that it had poor controls, and felt broken and unplayable to those who used it. I'm not saying that Metro is as bad as this, but it brings back memories of this video.. One of the Metro-style apps I used actually required me to use two fingers. Impossible with regular computers.

    Note: This is NOT my video.

    As for the Start Screen, search for files and apps, and other features that are similar, they work some of the time, but they can't duplicate the functionality of the Start Menu and Windows Explorer on the desktop. For example, I couldn't browse into half of the folders that were on the C: drive. As for the App Search feature, it works most of the time, but it is easier to use the Start menu and Start Search or scroll through a list, rather than tiles.

    Also, when I watched the BUILD video of Steven Sinofsky demonstrating Windows 8 on a desktop with Remote Desktop, I began to wonder: what if Sinofsky opened a Metro-style app on the remote PC and tried to use it from within the Metro Remote Desktop application? My guess: when he right-clicked to use the Metro app running on the remote PC, it would have brought up the Remote Desktop interface on the host computer, blocking out the Metro controls on the remote PC. Metro in its current state does not work for me, and feels less like "simple" and more like returning to the MS-DOS days with better graphics and sound.

    As for "no clutter," my PC never becomes cluttered, except with files that would certainly show up in the Metro UI if I had them in Windows 8. I keep a row of gadgets on the right-hand side where Windows Sidebar used to be, and three columns of desktop icons on the left-hand side. When I uninstall programs, I use a utlitly called Revo Uninstaller that cleans up the program's leftover files and Registry settings. The Start Screen, by contrast, looks much more cluttered. It's full of "Live Tiles" and links to applications that I don't want to use (ex. Socialite and Tweet@rama), and while I do know how to customize the Start Screen, having to bring up a full-screen pane every time I want do do something automatically means that there is no drag-and-drop interface when switching between panes, making Metro more complicated than previous Windows interfaces. Also, I have yet to see an example of a Metro app that can compete with a desktop app in terms of functionality. PaintPlay doesn't duplicate all of the features in Microsoft Paint, so it certainly can't complete with Adobe Photoshop. True, these are only demo apps, but I haven't seen any Metro apps at this point that are more than toys, simple games, or lacking in the most basic features. How do I visit Favorites in Metro IE? Where is the history? What if I want to use the developer tools?

    Microsoft's response is that I can use the desktop for this, but then I ask, "Why do I even bother with Metro in the first place if it only works for a few features?" It's like jumping around a bunch of different websites just to read one article, or switching back and forth between computers just to type and print a few words every time for every possible scenario.

    I understand what the appeal of Metro might be for someone who finds the desktop overly complicated or cluttered, but for me, it is the other way around. Metro usually gets in the way of using the computer normally, and while it does have its good points, the cons outweigh the pros at this point.



    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:50 PM
  • Simplicity can be a good thing, but there is such a thing as "too simple." .


    There's an old saying I like:  "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."  :)

     

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:08 PM
  • Simplicity can be a good thing, but there is such a thing as "too simple." .


    There's an old saying I like:  "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."  :)

     

    -Noel


    Einstein? :o
    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:40 PM
  • I think people dwell too much on the "Metro's not MY desktop" thing.

    This is a preview of an attempted all-platform Windows... I really think Windows 8 final will have the ability to make Metro optional or disabled, particularly for mousers.

    As a desktop user with no touch, I would like to see them make Metro 'wrap' around Desktop, so we could bump the mouse into Desktop edges... with some 'resistance' ...to flip into Metro. Touch users could use a two-finger swipe to get in/out of Desktop if they wish, or disable it.  It would be more seamless than Desktop as an app, and let Metro wrap instead of being a static-ended wall.  Would just like to be able to 'flick' with a mouse, rather than just wheel or scrollbar.

    I can see Desktop users spending time in Metro... browsing, email, facebook... not everyone on a PC does much more ...and even those who do heading to Desktop for whatever reason, just when they need to. Especially with touch-enabled laptops, 'transformers', and all-in-one screens.  In other words, Metro lends itself well to 'casual use' even on desktops... it's when you want to get down to multi-window work that you'd abandon Metro.  I think we protest too much, resisting change.  In the end, I think we'll get to 'have it your way'... sticking to Desktop if we want. Metro is a new option for desktoppers, and the main environment for touch only devices.  I really don't think this is an attempt to make Windows be Metro only and abandon the Desktop. Multiple windows are a necessity, not just multiple fullscreens.  This is just one Windows to rule them all (devices).

     


    • Edited by RDrr Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:53 PM
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:47 PM
  • This is a preview of an attempted all-platform Windows... I really think Windows 8 final will have the ability to make Metro optional or disabled, particularly for mousers.



    We all think (or better: hope) this.  But this is exactly the problem.

    We shouldn't be "hoping" for anything.  We shouldn't have to "think" or "assume" they won't push the paradigm like it is presented in the DP.

    All this could be settled in an instant if someone from microsoft would have the balls to come into this forum and flat out saying what the plans are.

    Instead, they leave us guessing, wondering in frustration.

    How are we supposed to plan our professional direction when the company we depend on isn't willing to share its own planning?

    We aren't asking much. 

     

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:16 PM
  • I think people dwell too much on the "Metro's not MY desktop" thing.

    This is a preview of an attempted all-platform Windows... I really think Windows 8 final will have the ability to make Metro optional or disabled, particularly for mousers.

    As a desktop user with no touch, I would like to see them make Metro 'wrap' around Desktop, so we could bump the mouse into Desktop edges... with some 'resistance' ...to flip into Metro. Touch users could use a two-finger swipe to get in/out of Desktop if they wish, or disable it.  It would be more seamless than Desktop as an app, and let Metro wrap instead of being a static-ended wall.  Would just like to be able to 'flick' with a mouse, rather than just wheel or scrollbar.

    I can see Desktop users spending time in Metro... browsing, email, facebook... not everyone on a PC does much more ...and even those who do heading to Desktop for whatever reason, just when they need to. Especially with touch-enabled laptops, 'transformers', and all-in-one screens.  In other words, Metro lends itself well to 'casual use' even on desktops... it's when you want to get down to multi-window work that you'd abandon Metro.  I think we protest too much, resisting change.  In the end, I think we'll get to 'have it your way'... sticking to Desktop if we want. Metro is a new option for desktoppers, and the main environment for touch only devices.  I really don't think this is an attempt to make Windows be Metro only and abandon the Desktop. Multiple windows are a necessity, not just multiple fullscreens.  This is just one Windows to rule them all (devices).

     



    Hey RDrr

    Not only do I not want to see Metro (I want the desktop interface), I also want the Windows 7 start menu back.

    I would love to profit from the ALL the improvements that Windows will bring to us : Ribbon in Windows explorer, USB3, fast boot, etc, etc.
    But I want the destop interface with the windows 7 startmenu as my default interface (as soon as I boot my machine).

    If this will be possible later on, I will buy Windows 7.
    If it will not be possible ..... no Windows 8 for me.

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:25 PM
  • @mt325000

    I am a developer and I feel exactly as you do, this implementation feels cobbled together and ill thought out. 

    I am VERY impressed with the enhancements to boot wen using an EFI BIOS, the quicker boot up and shutdown, things like the ability to re-install Windows keeping your files intact (assuming it works, it crashed when I tried it, but I had been messing about joining my Win8 to my SBS2003 domain and turning off the Metro UI previously using the registry hack so I can't blame it for that). I even like the ribbon in Explorer (never thought I'd say that!) it makes showing file ending and other stuff much simpler than going through "Tools" >> "Folder Options" etc.

    Like you, I think that Metro is for phones with small screens, I don't even think it's right for 10" tablets given that Windows 8 will be multi-tasking, it seems a waste to lose all the advancements that have been made since DOS to end up in 2011/2012 going back to essentially single tasking again.

    My Solution

    I think they should make the metro tiles operate in 3D space so they can overlap (you know behave like Windows :) ) and have Metro Style Min/Max Restore and exit icons.  The tabs for showing opened pages in the Metro version of Internet Explorer 10 have close icons so it can be done.  The key thing being that they don't need to be full screen.  You might say well why not forget Metro tiles in that case, but I think for operations on a tablet where you are using your fingers, the larger size makes sense. I really like Metro on my Windows Phone 7 and it works much better than my old Windows phone 6.5 did where you had to have a stylus to work it. Mind you, even on my phone I want to be able to close things grrrrr!

    Also I would have a Metroised Win7 style Task bar a the bottom of the screen but in a way similar to auto-hide it will fade to transparent when your pointer or finger haven't been near it for a pre-set time.

    Thus when running "legacy" apps like Word or Excel you can start or switch to them by moving your mouse/finger towards the task bar, which makes it appear and become more solid like the Win7 one and start or select applications like we do now in Windows 7, or by clicking/tapping on the desktop metro tile, or by using ALT+TAB or Winkey+TAB if on a PC with mouse and keyboard.

    I think it should have some fancy graphical effect to autofade to transparent, so that it's always on screen and like the existing Win7 taskbar can be docked to any side of the screen.  When your mouse or finger moves away from it, it becomes almost transparent, just dark enough to show running applications, (I dislike the current implementation of Metro on Windows in that you can't at a glance see what is running like you can with the Win7 taskbar). I would make the active application's button slightly less transparent with a glow that matches your Metro tile colour setting. Obviously if you put a Metro App or a legacy app full screen it can be a user setting whether the full screen app covers it or not (I would always let it stay visible so that I can see what I have running at a glance, other users might be happy to cover it up and just make it reappear now and again by moving their mouse or finger close to it to make it pop over the active tile).

    I can understand why they have done away with the start menu in its current implementation as on tablets using fingers it is hard to get to the menus, but I can't see why the start menu cannot be re-imagined, so that instead of being like it is now, why not make it more like the way menus work in Media Centre which works with both mouse and finger? I don't mean that the menu takes over the whole desktop, but it expands away from the start button in a more finger friendly format. I see each selection ballooning up from a smaller starting point and when you move past the first item it shrinks back to its unselected size.

    I think as it is the two modes (metro and desktop) don't work and switching between them is very clunky and almost childlike in this release. It just doesn't feel very professional. If it stays like it is in the final build I will definitely have to turn off Metro on my machines, and probably when using a tablet will turn off desktop and just accept that until MS develop Metro versions of Word and Excel tablets cannot do spreadsheets etc.

    Siv

     

     

     


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:27 PM
  • Your post contains some good ideas. However, I don't like this idea of the desktop and everything associated with it (bascially the entire Windows ecosystem) being called "legacy." The word "legacy" in this context means that something is outdated, old-fashioned, or a dying technology. This is not true of the desktop in Windows, nor is it true of Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, OneNote, or any other program included in Office 2010. I would not refer to Word or Excel as legacy apps, even when placed in quotation marks. To do so implies that the desktop is the past, while Metro is the future, and I don't see how that can be true on the desktop, even if Microsoft wants it to be. I sincerely hope that Microsoft will reconsider using Metro as the primary UI on desktops and laptops.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:28 AM
  • @mt325000

    I thought you could see I had my tongue pressed firmly in my cheek when I put quotes around that.  You and I know from the way they are talking, that the MS Marketing drones have decided that everything will be "Metro" and "apps" now and by deduction therefore everything prior to that will be called "legacy".

    I am with you, the way the Windows 7 desktop works is fine and for mouse and keyboard usage does not need altering massively, but the drones have to justify why this is going to cost the punters £85 to £150 or if you are American $135 to $236 so they have to put some new gloss on it and a fancy new box so that the great unwashed feel like they are getting something for their hard earned cash.

    I would be happy with improved boot up and shutdown, improved Explorer, lower memory usage, better performance. Trouble is the average Joe probably doesn't appreciate that as much as developers and techies like us, so you need to have something shiny to sell.

    I am just waiting for Jenson or Steve say "Legacy" when talking about those "ancient" applications (note not "apps") I can feel it coming!

    I'll still be writing "Legacy" applications when I retire, mind you if they continue with this it might be on Linux!

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:16 AM
  • Y'know, all I see in Windows 8 - ALL I seem to see - is window dressing.  Changes to the applications that ship with the OS (and not even improvements, just reimplementation and a toy start menu) - basically a new coat of paint.

     

    Did Microsoft retire all their technical people?  Why aren't we hearing about improvements in memory management, tasking/threading performance, greater stability, etc.?  All this "re-imagining" stuff is great fun for management and marketing types, but could it be that there are really no changes under the hood?

     

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:50 AM
  • We all think (or better: hope) this.  But this is exactly the problem.

    We shouldn't be "hoping" for anything.  We shouldn't have to "think" or "assume" they won't push the paradigm like it is presented in the DP.

    All this could be settled in an instant if someone from microsoft would have the balls to come into this forum and flat out saying what the plans are.

    Instead, they leave us guessing, wondering in frustration. 


    Pesonally, I am seriously considerating pushing other non-Microsoft platforms for new projects. One of the biggest things why I do not like Apple, for example, is their silency and ignorancy regarding their customers. Now, Microsoft is doing something quite similar to its developers (which are basically not only their customers but also their partners). If Microsoft will follow the Apple's way than I am losing my interest in Microsoft technologies as far as reasonable (aka possible with respect to hard requirements by the customer, but many do not care).

    • Edited by MCCZ Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:11 AM
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:05 AM
  • They probably honestly don't KNOW the direction they're going.  Perhaps they're trying to gauge the feedback from this pre-release to determine what to do.

     

    We can only hope so.

     

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:06 AM
  • @Noel, I think your comment is very unfair to the people that have worked on Windows. While I'm not particularly sold on the idea of two UI paradigms (Metro and Desktop), it is impossible to deny the many improvements they've done to the Core of windows. For example:

    1. The Windows Runtime is very impressive, the way it feels natural whether you are writing in C++ or Javascript or C# and how fast it is.
    2. Hyper-V 
    3. USB 3 support
    4. Faster boot-times

    If you are not seeing all the technical improvements they've made, then it seems to me that you haven't looked beyond the cover.

     

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:26 AM
  • WinRT: It's for Metro only at this time and Metro is, generally, usable on tablets only or (relatively simple) tablet-like applications. It's unusable for desktop apps, nor for some business touch apps. It's just one other incompatible and separatedly maintained part to the rich set of different APIs Microsoft already has for (almost) the same thing (Win32, WinForms, WPF, Silverlight, WinRT as examples).

    Booting, Defender, ISO mounting, file copy: These are user-oriented features. As a developer, I do not care a lot about them (they're just nice to have). As a customer, I can wait a bit to see what's new.

    Hyper-V: In most cases, it falls to the user-oriented features category, but might also interest a small part of developers and hardware partners.

    USB 3.0: Personally, I do not care, but I imagine that many hardware developers and device makers are interested.

    Generally, Build created more core question than it answered. Quite sad result of this reimagined, fluid and no-compromise announcement.




    • Edited by MCCZ Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07 AM
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:53 AM
  • Has anyone considered that Microsoft's development goal for the Build conference was (merely) to have Metro stable?

    This would imply that the Metro-Desktop, task management, and other annoyances aren't finished yet.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:26 AM
  • As far as I get, they did not stated that officially. It's just a guessing and hopes.
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:31 AM
  • Aroush:  Yes, I would agree it would be nice, but it is a preview... with beta still to come.  I think their plans are too 'open' now, make one statement and eveyone asks more.  I've often read of them starting out with features and then pushing some back to another release or whatever.  I just can't see them saying 'We are Microsoft Metro... all your Windows are belong to obsolete' ;)... I think we're safe with 8 including desktop users in their preferred mode.

    Wrap-around Metro ...I like. 

    Mouse/kbd users, it wraps around Desktop 'landing pad', then bump resistant edge out to Metro which includes mouse flick. 

    Phone users, Metro wraps around dialpad, swipe out to other apps... other end wraps back to dialpad.

    Tablet users... well, maybe a 'reading pad'... ereader/visual content ...'zines pad. 

    I just would really like to see a Metro wall, with Desktop/Windows... (not another darn 'app').  I could move some of the 'gadgets' out to Metro to be suspended, yet a bump/flick and I get a quick look, etc.  I see a lot of utility in that combined interface.  I've been wanting a 'primary' screen of a flickable dialpad on a smartphone... like (Skype, etc) on my iPod Touch (don't have an iPhone)... instead of the 'search' pad on left end of iOS. Seems an obvious fit for smartphones.  I have a Nook Color (rooted) and my tablet is still primarily an ereader, so that's my 'tablet desktop' for Metro to wrap around.  I'm a little tired of rows/columns of icons.

     

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:02 AM
  • Site-Jumper:  I'm certainly not saying you can't have the Desktop... or even Desktop with -no- Metro.  I'm saying a wrap-around Metro ...with Desktop as a 'landing pad' would be great... for me, anyway... and I don't have a touch computer (except iPod touch). See my reply to Aroush. Win8 wants to be on all devices... well, phones have a 'desktop' (the dialpad)... tablets could have an ereader/multimedia player desktop... and PC's have... the desktop.

    We can have it all... but Desktop "as an 'app'" sux ;).  Wrap Metro around Desktop... mouse in/out (like Linux workspaces)... put gadgets,etc in Metro so you can suspend some, out of the way. Great! 

    And... make Metro optional (disabled) for some. sigh. ;)

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:09 AM
  • Metro UI will almost certainly be an optional "application" for Windows8
    Not a big fan of using it, but it is fun to develop for.
    0x2B |~ 0x2B Blog : www.it-ca.net/blogdylan
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:12 AM
  • Dylan,

    I think the reason a lot of us here are getting a bit agitated because we are worried that this won't be the case.  Microsoft have been very good in the past at bulldozering ill thought out ideas into their O/S releases and we as developers and IT Support have to pick up the pieces.  I am thinking of UAC on Vista as a prime example.  It seems like a good idea at first, when something potentially nasty is about to install the user is warned by the screen going dark and a dialog asking you whether you want to install this potentially dangerous thing.  Trouble with this is that two things happen with end users:

    1.  They get sick of this sequence of events happening as it interrupts their work so they just ignore the message and click OK YES whatever to make it go away.

    2.  Because UAC can only tell the user the name of the executable that is trying to run which means absolutely NOTHING to most end users, you are asking them to make a decision that might have serious consequences with them having absolutely no way of knowing what the right answer is other than them always saying NO just in case it is bad and that ends up badly for them as the application they wanted now won't install properly as it's been blocked.

    So what seemed like a good idea to the Vista developers turns into a cause of hatred for the operating system from end users, combine that with over demanding hardware requirements because the whole thing was a bloated mess and you have more ammunition for Steve Jobs and the Linux community to beat Microsoft with. If they had listened to the forums like this one they would not have done that and Vista may not have been as badly received as it was.

    Although I am a developer, an IT Support guy and an IT Consultant I do care about my future livelihood and the Windows ecosystem is VERY important to me. When you see the ooperating system you support being presented like this and you can see that it will cause massive problems for the users you support you can't help but get very agitated and want to shout loudly at Microsoft to try by weight of numbers to turn the supertanker that is Microsoft away from things you know from 20 years experience in the IT business will go badly.

    I am an older guy, but I am open to new ideas, you can't survive in IT if you're not open to new ideas, but you also learn to spot things that won't work at a fundamental level and shoehorning the two different paradigms together like this WILL NOT WORK.  What is right on a machine that has a 2" by 4" screen (ie Windows Phone 7) is absolutely NOT right on a device that has two or more 24" screens and uses a keyboard and mouse as its main input methods.

    I know this is a developer preview and I thank MS for allowing us a look at it so that we can play with it and construct applications for it, but also listen to us.  We are a specific bunch of users and probably don't exactly represent the entire Windows user base, but collectively we do have great experience and MS would do well to sift through these forums and look for trends and I would say they ought to be getting the fact that Metro and Windows Aero on Mouse and Keyboard PCs wil NOT Work in the way it is set out in this release.

    I have put together some ideas of how it might work about half way down this thread:

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsdeveloperpreviewgeneral/thread/dbb6a6ac-e5aa-4cf6-8603-72e9c24e441f

    This is just my idea, I am sure there a cleverer people at MS who can develop that idea into a slicker concept.

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK

    • Edited by Siv Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:19 AM
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:42 AM
  • Siv:

    I'm going to stay out of dicussions regarding Metro on the desktop, it is no longer worth getting upset over.  Anyone who produces "output" knows, inherently, Metro doesn't belong on non-touch systems.

    I'll try and make that my last comment, if you care to see more empassioned pleas and downright forceful assertions, click on my handle and serch through the threads I've responded to or created on this forum.

    So, why am I replying to your post?  You mention hard earned cash.  Here's the downright humorous thing:

    Most of the people eager to see Metro destroy desktop computing as the "new paradigm" and accuse the rest of us as being dinosaurs, already pay a large fraction of,  if not the whole of the lower figure you mention EACH MONTH for their toys "dataplan".

    So we might as well just admit it now, any hope of MS reducing their OS pricing model will fall on deaf ears.  Imagine this call to MS marketing:

    Caller:"Hi, I really like your OS, but the price is out of my budget, is there any reason I have to pay $300 for the Professional Edition?  I'm not made of money and it would really impact me to have to spend that much."

    Microsoft:"How much is your smartphone and/or tablet data plan per month?  If you amortize the cost of our full-retail OS over the life-cycle, you'll find our OS pricing has a hard time even breaking the $5/month barrier."

    So, while I agree in principal that cash should be a consideration and in fact driving force in our decisions, it becomes almost comical to discuss the OS price knowing people are paying 10 to 35 times as much per month just so they can play with their toys.  Of course the same principal applies to ISP charges for home internet access.  People think $10/month is a no brainer, a deal of the century.  $40?  "Not bad at all, especially for broadband". LOL!

    And so lamentations about the OS cost seem out of place.  Even the cheapest home internet packages you can find are twice the amortized cost of the OS.

    Trust me, I've done the same thing, so I'm not calling you out or trying to marginalize your comment, but if we look at the bigger picture the OS turns out to be the most affordable part of computing by a very wide margin.

    Take care M8.

    DAS

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:00 AM
  • Win7Tester:

    It's a good point you make, but as you can see from the post I made in reply to Dylan just above yours, money isn't my only concern, it's about the direction MS are heading with this concept and how I don't want them to turn Windows 8 into another ME or Vista.  I have to support and develop for Windows and experince tells me this is going to be a big problem down the line if this pre-beta is going to be anything like the final product.

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:12 AM
  • According to UAC, I have suggest Microsoft few years ago to allow us switch from the secure UAC desktop back to the normal one to allow as make a more informative decision. I have created a new thread for this (http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsdeveloperpreviewgeneral/thread/8235bd4d-3422-4f08-9881-c79d928285fa) if you are interested.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:32 AM
  • MCCZ:

    I would say the best way to deal with UAC is to not use it at all and get users educated into having a non administrative user account by default.  So the way it should be done is as follows:

    1.  Set up your PC using and administrator account, making sure to only install stuff from your own media or sites that you know and trust on the internet. Smart Screen filter will help you here. Also make sure that one of the first things you install is your Anti-Virus product. Make sure you have a folder that is available to all users for downloading stuff off the internet to. Let's call it "Global Downloads".

    2.  Once you have your system configured with all the applicatuions you need, create your actual user account, make sure it is only a normal user with no admin priveleges.

    3.  Log on and use that account for every day work.  If you see a new application that you would like to try out or purchase, download it to the "Global Downloads" folder mentioned above. Make sure that no AV messages are encountered whilst doing this. Obviously when the "App Store" is running this should be less dangerous.

    4.  Log off as the normal user and back on as the admin user (or use switch users if you have lots of ram).

    5.  Install the application using the Admin account which will automatically copy the All Users type icons to the same location in the standard user menus.

    6.  Log back in as the standard user again and if need be, reposition the newly installed application from the admin user's location to where it suits you.

    To achieve this MS would make it that the "All Users" stuff can be moved about on each individual user's start menu, so effectively even the "All User" stuff is just copied from the original "All users" that was created when an Admin level user installed the applications, each user then has the authority to move it around but in doing so it only affects their login, everyone else gets the original layout and then any individual alterations to the all user apps are only made in their own profile.  I would give the user a control panel option to revert all menus back to the orignal administators configuration, so that if they delete icons or somehow get themselves in a mess it's one click to get back to the starting point.

    What makes most users angry with non-admin accounts is that they can't alter all the program menus to suit themselves, they don't get the distinction between HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE and HKEY_CURRENT_USER.

    I think if this thinking was adopted a lot of the arguments that people use for needing Admin level accounts would go away. This then means that Malware cannot install itself for that user without somehow compromising Windows Security and in that case UAC wouldn't have saved you anyway.

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    • Edited by Siv Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:22 PM
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:18 PM
  • I am quite happy with the UAC approach - run as a normal user and elevate when needed. It combines best of the "normal" and "administrative" world while keeping the security and control over administrative priviledges on a reasonable level.

    For example, I see the elevation prompt quite often (even many times per day), but still, most processes are running without administrative priviledges.

    Many of that users are educated and they know that this particular operation requires priviledges and that they should check the requester and when they have a suspisios that something is strange or that they have not expected that dialog, they should ask someone else whether they might allow or deny. Many of these request are also ok, but they rather doublecheck.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:05 PM
  • Noel,

    I think there are some good improvements under the hood, the improved memory management that Steven Sinofsky showed with the netbook he brought to the Windows 7 launch in the Build keynote showed that Windows 8 does use less RAM.  I can say personally that it seems to be more nimble on my ageing HP laptop.  Also it definitely shuts down quicker and starts up a bit quicker. NB: I don't have a UEFI BIOS on the laptop so it might be a lot faster on machines that support that.

    I did have a BSOD on my first install when I started messing about with the RP registry hack to turn Metro off and it gave me a very polite BSOD and then recovered.

    I am impressed with the UEFI compatibility, I have thought that the traditional BIOS screens do look a bit out of date by today's standards, as long as going graphical in the BIOS doesn't mean that you can end up getting locked out easier than with the more traditional DOS look BIOS.

    I have managed to get VS 2008 and VS 2010 running alongside VS 2011 and also installed MS Office 2003 without any hitches. (I did turn off UAC as that messes with the Office 2003 setup program).

    Unlike a lot of people here I do like the ribbon in Explorer and the return of the "Up" button.

    I like the recover your system stuff in the Metro Control Panel, I hope that gets replicated into the Aero Control Panel as I would want that sort of improvement in my Aero Only Windows 8 unless they manage to turn Metro around before release.

    So I think Metro UI apart, this has quite a few goodies that would make me part with my money for Windows 8.

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:32 PM
  •  (I did turn off UAC as that messes with the Office 2003 setup program).

    Just keep in mind you can no longer turn it all the way off.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:51 PM
  • I have been reading through the posts, and I would just like to remind everyone to keep your comments clean. Do not post anything that may be percieved as offensive, slanderous, crude, etc. I would like to have a civil discussion about Windows 8. Do not use any language that could even remotely be considered offensive. Some of you have crossed the line. Do not do so again or I will delete all of my responses to this post.


    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:53 PM
  • Noel,

    Well the amount I turned it off did work in Windows 8 Aero and the office applications installed OK. What is left of UAC when you move the slider right down to the bottom?

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:55 PM
  • Siv, escalations are still happening, but the system doesn't prompt.  But it's not the same as running with Administrator privileges all the time.  See this thread:

    http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsdeveloperpreviewgeneral/thread/03b3bbf5-4811-440f-9c65-e425c0b6e00e

     

    What does that imply?  We are to understand that Microsoft feels the new Metro app store system they're proposing is so likely to be abused that they can't roll it out without UAC to protect it.  I just don't like the sound of that.  It also implies that Windows is moving farther and farther from being a mainstream operating system and toward being nothing more than a web-integrated game delivery engine.  It's an unbelievable turn, but the evidence seems pretty strong.

     

    I only hope they plan to release a serious version - maybe a derivative of one of the Server editions or something for professionals.  Otherwise computing professionals are all likely to be hanging onto Windows 7 for a while, during which time we seek alternatives for what's next.

     

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:24 PM
  • Noel,

    I liked your comment in the thread you pointed me to. Yet more disturbing news about the way MS are heading with this. I wouldn't mind if they were just going to have Windows 8 Metro, Windows 8 Home Premium and Windows 8 Professional, where Metro and and Home Premium did it the way it appears to be from your conversation with MS and have Professional and higher versions capable of having UAC turned right off under administrator control or through Group Policy.

    It does sound like MS are going for the "air head" Mac territory and just dumbing the whole thing down. It's like they have given up on the corporate sector and are chasing Apple into the casual "home user on sofa" market.  Probably lucrative if they could get in, but I would say already lost to Apple. It all sounds "me too".

    Sickened from Worcester UK.


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:03 PM
  • The problem with all of this is that every user on here is piling on, creating a very skewed way of how the users at large think.

    Just let me say, I LIKE Metro. For about 10 minutes, I thought 'why can't I just turn this off on the desktop?' Then I used it.

    I liked it.  It is not static (or won't be when fully implemented), it isn't ugly (when it is fully filled with beautiful Metro apps), and it appears so fast and allows me to search for files and settings, and connects the charm stuff to apps.

    for those of you who want it off, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will let you turn it off.  If they don't, some 3rd party will build a hack for it.

    There will be plenty of Windows clients and servers to develop for, so slow down, take a breath, and stop taking everything so darn seriously.

    Enjoy Windows 8 and the remaining of the Windows operating system. 

    Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:24 AM
  • The problem with all of this is that every user on here is piling on, creating a very skewed way of how the users at large think.

    Just let me say, I LIKE Metro. For about 10 minutes, I thought 'why can't I just turn this off on the desktop?' Then I used it.

    I liked it.  It is not static (or won't be when fully implemented), it isn't ugly (when it is fully filled with beautiful Metro apps), and it appears so fast and allows me to search for files and settings, and connects the charm stuff to apps.

    for those of you who want it off, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will let you turn it off.  If they don't, some 3rd party will build a hack for it.

    There will be plenty of Windows clients and servers to develop for, so slow down, take a breath, and stop taking everything so darn seriously.

    Enjoy Windows 8 and the remaining of the Windows operating system. 

    Agreed. That makes sense. It's like people here and there start discussing that the new UI does not allow for window arrangement whereas I work with Snap and have my windows arranged on one monitor, and my Metro apps snapped to my Windows Forms providing for much broader experience than ever before! 


    Well this is the world we live in And these are the hands we're given...
    Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:17 PM
  • Interesting...  I thought to try this:  Enable the Red Pill Metro avoidance tweak (set RPEnabled to 0) to force the host environment to stay 100% in the traditional desktop, then use the Tablet Simulator application to fool with the Metro desktop.

    Unfortunately, in this case it boots up the virtual tablet with the RPEnabled flag set at 0 as well, so it starts on the Desktop.  But this seems to accomplish 99% of the necessary segregation between Desktop and Metro.  I could imagine using a desktop system for development, set to disable Metro, but then using the Tablet Simulator to develop and test Metro apps.  This finally gives me some hope about the future of Windows.

     

    FYI, the Tablet Simulator is:

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

     

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:20 PM
  • My hope is that Microsoft will make Metro optional on desktops and laptops. It's good for tablets, but it doesn't work that well for me. The usability problems with Metro can be measured by the number of mouse clicks it takes to do tasks when working in a desktop-only mode compared with working in a Metro/Desktop combination or Metro only. In most cases, it takes less clicks to use the desktop than it does to use Metro or a combination of Metro and the desktop. Thus, I still think Metro on desktops is a bad idea, as I stated above.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:23 PM
  • The difference even go greater if you count not only clicks but also how far you need to move as many things in metro are designed such that you need to move through whole screen several times.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:36 PM
  • I know what you mean about the number of things in Metro that take up the entire screen. With the intent of making Metro "chromeless" for tablets, Microsoft seems to have forgotten that chromless programs are not a good idea on desktops (at least, that's how it looks in the Developer Preview). Don't forget that with this new right-click to open the UI model, almost everything in Windows requires more clicks than it used to. If Microsoft argues that this is a bad way to measure usability with this model, they need to remember that Metro, if the final version is like the one in the Developer Preview, will be used by mouse-and-keyboard users more than it will by users with touchscreens. Click count is still an accepted way of measuring usability, and as long as Windows 8 will be used on desktops, click count still needs to be measured. As I use Windows 8, I don't even need to try to keep track of the number of clicks and screen refreshes to know that this isn't a good way of doing things on a desktop. I tried to figure it out, but ultimately, I asked "What's the point?" and set up a dual-boot between Windows Vista and Windows 8. If Metro has any advantages on desktops other than "live tiles" and "more room for content" that I didn't need in the first place, I would like to hear them. As someone who uses Internet Explorer 9 with all of the old default toolbars and the Status Bar turned on, it makes sense that Metro just doesn't work for me. I don't need hidden UI and a constantly changing screen on my large monitor.

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 5:30 PM
  • The big problem with this incredibly bad metro-on-desktop experience is thinking back at windows 7 pdc and realizing hardly anything changed from pdc -> rtm. If we have the same thing from win 8 pdc -> rtm, we're bound to be stuck with metro. Or probably, bound to be stuck with win 7 till windows 9, where they suddenly realized they made a big mistake and double back (you know, what EXACTLY happened on vista).

    Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:10 PM
  • Full reset only works with metro apps and desktop.  Desktop apps are not guaranteed to survive the reset.  Having said that, I have done a full reset and my desktops apps remained.  Of course the only desktop app I had was VS 11 so it could have been an anomaly.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:45 PM
  • My point in mentioning the fact that Full Reset was missing was only to point out that it doesn't exist in the desktop section, and only exists in the Metro Control Panel. Hopefully, this and other issues like it will change in future versions.
    Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:58 PM
  • When you're looking at Metro, remember something important:  Microsoft writes Windows for hardware of several years from now.  Say it takes them a year to get this out, and that big corporations wait a couple of years anyway for SP1 or whatever.  Result:  think Metro on 2014 hardware, not 2011 hardware.  AND... remember, this build is a pre-beta. It has undergone NO tuning whatsoever yet.
    Monday, September 26, 2011 12:24 AM
  • Don't forget that it was this "several years from now" focus that killed Windows Vista in the marketplace. Vista was a great OS, one of my all-time favorites, but it was launched about a year earlier than it should have been and had terrible support from third party developers. If Windows 7 had come out in 2007 and Windows Vista had come out in 2009, we would probably be talking about how bad Windows 7 was and how good Windows Vista was. There are plenty of things Vista does better than Windows 7. As for future computers, most people don't want to use touchscreens on a computer in front of their face, and I doubt that tablets are going to replace PC's entirely. People need a physical keyboard to type on, and there are no laptops or tablets on the market that can match the power of a desktop. The laptops that can do this might as well not be laptops at all.
    Monday, September 26, 2011 12:45 AM
  • Mark,

    I don't care what hardware this is going to run on, it is NOT EVER going to work on a full multi-tasking operating system in its current form. The concept of touch on a phone size device will NEVER work on a 24" screen, mouse and keyboard device, so stop pretending it will.

    I do not know why the techies at MS believe this is a good idea.

    I know this was released as a platform for developers to try out development for Metro Apps and it is clearly a pre-beta, but I have to say that anyone in their right mind could never see this being given to end users for anything other than phone duties, it's not even right for tablets as you would be wasting the screen space.

    Give up on Metro and start thinking more cleverly about how you can marry Windows to a touch oriented O/S. Metro is adequate on Windows Phone 7 and hopelessly out of place on a desktop PC or laptop.

    Siv


    Graham Sivill - Martley, Worcester. UK
    Monday, September 26, 2011 3:04 AM
  • And why is it a bad idea?

    I've been running the DP - Immersive and all - on my traditional (keyboard and mouse) desktop PC since it became available (my bare-metal install dual-boot with Windows 7, and two VM installations).  I run lots of traditionally-built applications on it (including Office 2010 Professional Plus x64) without a quibble.  No Start menu. (And I have a LONG history of dealing with the Start menu, as I go back to beta 2 of Windows 95.)  Is Immersive for everyone?  Not only no, but *heck no* - it may not even be for all touch-enabled users.  (A touch-enabled version of, surprisingly, the traditional Start menu may indeed be needed for the Immersive-averse among the touch-enabled crowd.)  This particular Developer Preview is *specific* in targeting the development of Immersive applications.  Basing all of what Windows 8 will be on what's present (and what's locked out) of the Developer Preview would be as silly as making the same judgement based on 7989 x64 - which was locked down in the opposing direction.  I have a 23-inch (diagonal and non-touch-enabled) flat-panel LCD display that handles the 1920x1080 noninterlaced full-Immersive StartScreen just fine - however, my usual home is the desktop (which has gone exactly nowhere).  I can still pretty up the desktop with wallpaper (which can also be used to the StartScreen as well).  I can still have desktop shortcuts.  I've even found that, despite seventeen years of living with the Start menu, Windows is *still* Windows without it.  Immersive should *remain* an option for even non-touch-enabled users - to be fair, there hasn't been a real fleshed-out alternative to the Start menu for Windows from anybody - including Microsoft.  (While Windows Media Center started that way, it has dried up mostly due to developer apathy.)  Notice that I didn't say that Immersive should be the standard UI - if anything, my argument is that there shouldn't *be* a standard UI for whatever Windows 8 winds up being called.  Let it become "user-choice"".

     

    Monday, September 26, 2011 4:42 AM
  • And try to use windows 8 in a netbook no metro aplication except setup will run (because of the screen dimension)
    Monday, September 26, 2011 4:48 AM
  • There will be users that love Immersive/Metro - despite the initial feedback, not all will be on tablets and slates.  (I have the Developer Preview x64 bare-metal installed, Immersive and all, and I find going back to Windows 7 x64 (Ultimate, at that) rather painful - fortunately, all the tricks I use to compensate for the DP's lacking a Start menu carry back to 7 x64, so I don't have to deal with the Start menu there, either.)  Also, traditional applications can co-exist alongside Immersive applications very well (Office 2010 does today) - in fact, I have not had so much as one traditional application crash.  (And yes, that includes the current version of the Skype non-business client for Windows.)

    Why there will be keyboard/mouse users flocking to Immersive - here's a surprise for a lot of developers; one major attraction factor behind Immersive is *because* the UI is a lot like that of existing tablets, slates, and smartphones.  User-interface dissimilarity is a decided pain among those with both a tablet and a PC, or a smartphone and a PC - what if you have a tablet, a smartphone, and a PC, each with a different UI?  (That has, in fact, been part of the headache RIM is having with the PlayBook, and why Android and Apple are making hay; the tablet/slate UI is close to, if not identical to, the smartphone UI.)  Now you have the Windows desktop user, confronted with a different user interface from his smartphone and his tablet, due to their being no real alternative (and there hasn't been one for sixteen years).

    That will be the attraction of Immersive.  The UI is indeed similar to that of tablets and smartphones, but by design (to lessen transition issues).

    That means that we, as developers, will have to deal with writing Immersive applications, and the only honest way to do that is to get to know Immersive as a UI the way our target user base will, and not necessarily on tablet and slate PCs. 

    Monday, September 26, 2011 5:06 AM
  • Okay - why is WinRT not usable for desktop applications?  You made a rather specific statement, but have not backed it up with any evidence.  Secondly, WinRT actually provides an alternative to those largely-disconnected (though rich) APIs, so you don't *have* to concentrate* on one API or the other, or one programming language or another.  (That has, in fact, become a major issue with all those rich APIs - they aren't connected.  Each API has a designed-in *language bias* and, thanks to that language bias, there's an issue of *API disconnect* in a multiple-API application.  You then wind up writing a lot of *glue code* since one API simply does not *fit all*.  Even if you're a medium or large development shop, that glue-code writing still chews up time that you won't get back.)  We don't have any real idea what is possible with WinRT yet, as all we've seen are small *teaser code* snippets - there's doubtless far more to the WinRT iceberg - just as there was to COM, or even Win32, compared to the early snippets of *that* that were shown with Windows 9x, and later, Windows NT.

    Booting, Defender, image-mounting, file-copy improvements: all that qualifies as hole-filling and user-targeted; most importantly, quite necessary hole-filling, just to keep Microsoft even with the competition (primarily Linux distributions).

    Hyper-V: that actually is more of use to developers (except for a small portion of non-developer power-users) as it migrates a server feature (remember, Hyper-V support was standard in Windows Server 2008) to the desktop (and replaces VirtualPC/XPMode in the process).

    USB 3.0: IHV-driven (controllers are appearing today, as are the first devices).  As both become more generally available, it *will* become a user issue, as USB 2.0 did (surprisingly, lack of support for USB 2.0 in Windows XP did drive some early adoption of Vista by users.

    Neither Microsoft or their products - and most especially Windows - cannot afford to stay static and staid; otherwise, their competition will eat their lunch.

     

    Monday, September 26, 2011 5:31 AM
  • Okay - why is WinRT not usable for desktop applications?  You made a rather specific statement, but have not backed it up with any evidence.

    -because microsoft said so during the build conferences related to programming.
    Monday, September 26, 2011 9:20 AM
  • Okay - why is WinRT not usable for desktop applications?

    Put simply, in large type so that people who use only one app or source of information at a time can understand it, there are some jobs that require a LOT OF COMPLEX INFORMATION to do, and Metro doesn't deliver it.

     

    These are difficult tasks, where the computer user must have access to all that information, from a number of sources,  SIMULTANEOUSLY to accomplish their job - their value-add process.  A good example of this kind of activity is software engineering.  Anyone creating software needs documentation, specifications, procedures, development suites, test apps, plus the normal office automation, all there. 

     

    Though some find it distasteful and some simply can't do it, there are a lot of folks who actually MULTITASK as well.  IT people do this - they don't get the luxury of playing with one simple app at a time.

     

    Ask anyone who works with multiple monitors why they have multiple monitors some time. Why do I have 2 monitors? Because there's not room for 3!

     

    In short, the people who do the real, complex work of the world need the most complex desktop environment their systems can manage.  Simpler is not better!

     

    -Noel

    Monday, September 26, 2011 1:27 PM
  • Microsoft - you must listen to users if you don't want to make crap again (i.e. Vista).

    I appeal to add ability to disable Metro if most users asks.

    Monday, September 26, 2011 1:46 PM
  • I'm guessing that Microsoft would like thirdd parties to make sophisticated apps in Metro. It would have really helped if they had an example of such an app at Build (say, a Metro version of Office), but that wasn't the case.

    In the same way that an IDE pulls together many disparate pieces into one environment, (I think) Microsoft envisions a world where more of that happens.

     

    Monday, September 26, 2011 5:51 PM
  • To everyone who has said that they like Metro:

    Even if you like it, that doesn't mean it will work for everyone. I, for instance, tend to boot up Windows 8 and the first tile I click on is "Desktop." As for Live Tiles, it's a function that can be duplicated on the desktop, and it already has been duplicated in the form of desktop gadgets and Windows Sidebar. My experience with Metro is that trying to use it on a PC is clunky, awkward, and everything requires more clicks and is harder to find than it is in Windows 7. Even though I know where everything is, it's too easy to click on the wrong thing when everything is in the form of tiles that look the same. I just move my mouse in the general direction of what I want to click on and end up clicking on the wrong thing. Fitts's Law may work for regular UI design, but when the entire screen becomes filled with giant clickable tiles, it no longer means what it did before, since users tend to abandon all attempts at precise clicking. Despite Microsoft's assurances that Metro works as well on the desktop as it does with mice and keyboards, it was obviously designed for touch and converted to work on desktops, which is NEVER a good idea. I can name multiple examples of software that was ruined by this type of conversion. I just don't see the point of "chromeless" programs and right-clicking to bring up the UI. Desktop apps have worked fine for years, and while Google Chrome is certainly popluar with its minimalist design, even Chrome doesn't try to hide the entire UI away from users.

    One of the big problems with Metro is that the Metro App concept seems to borrow directly from iPhone apps. I have an iPod Touch, but I honestly can't remember the last time I installed an app on it. Most iPhone apps are so slimmed down that they aren't worth the download time. Not only that, but when you're using a device with only a WiFi connection and no 3/4G (like almost all laptops), this slimmed-down, Internet centric design becomes an annoyance, as there is nothing to do with the device when there is no Internet connection. What happens to all of your Web-centric Metro apps when your Internet connection fails? They no longer work. As for the apps that aren't Internet centric, PaintPlay can never replace Adobe Photoshop, and I can't see how a Metro version of Photoshop could be as good as the desktop version.

    People who either work at Microsoft or like Metro may say "That's why the Desktop is still there," but it brings up the question "Why does Metro exist at all?" Just about everything that Metro does can be done on the desktop, and Metro's flaws aren't worth putting up with just to experience Live Tiles. I run Internet Explorer 9 on my Windows 7 machine with all of the old Internet Explorer 8 toolbars turned on. Does Microsoft suddenly expect me to give that up and use Internet Explorer 10 Metro as the "primary" Internet Explorer? PC's are designed to work a specific way, and replacing the desktop with Metro as the main Windows shell is not a good idea. Someone once pointed out that every OS on the desktop has a Start menu, some kind of command bar, app switcher or taskbar, and windows to display content because people like it that way. Do people really want to replace Windows with a cell phone interface? My PC is not a cell phone, nor is it trying to be, so why does Microsoft think I should use it like one?

    I almost never run programs in full-screen mode because it breaks the Windows experience, and having to switch back and forth from full-screen to the desktop is an annoyance. Why would switching between the Start Screen and the desktop in Windows 8 be any different? It's not different at all. If Windows needs to be reimagined, that reimagination should not involve stuffing the desktop in a legacy corner, or hiding the windowing system underneath the main UI.

    For anyone who is wondering, I am a big Microsoft fan, but I won't upgrade to Windows 8 if the final version of Metro looks like the version in Windows Developer Preview.

    Monday, September 26, 2011 7:39 PM
  • I never implied that Metro/Immersive should be the default - my only argument is that it should not be dismissed out of hand for traditional-desktop users (as a lot on the opposing side have made quite plain they want to do).

    Your arguments against Metro/Immersive sound like the person that just got a smartphone, tablet, or slate and knows exactly diddly about how to use it.  Congratulations - that is exactly the issue that current users of smartphones and tablets (almost all of which run Android or iOS) face *today* with Windows.  They don't want to change any more than you do!  With Metro/Immersive, they don't have to - and, most importantly for all of you that want your usual way of doing things, *neither do you*.  It is neither possible, or feasible, to have one device do everything - that means multiple devices.  The problem - so far - is that multiple devices means multiple user interfaces.  Dealing with multiple user interfaces over multiple devices is a pain - and reducing the number of devices is not always the answer - or even a possibility.

    All I ask is that you mot dismiss other options/alternatives merely because they don't meet with your approval.

     

     

    Monday, September 26, 2011 11:32 PM
  • I have been using Windows Developer Preview for over a week, and so far, no how much I use it, it just doesn't make sense. I can produce a very carefully assembled, partially scientific rejection of Metro, if you really want one. No matter how much I use it, though, it just doesn't make sense. At first, I hoped Microsoft might actually be able to make Metro work on the desktop, but after actually trying it, it seems that almost everything about Metro doesn't make sense on desktops. As for my iPod Touch, I have had it for over a year, and I do use it, but it is generally best suited to web browsing and playing games. The few apps I have tried that are geared toward productivity aren't very good, and it's no wonder that it can't work on a tiny device with a 3.5" screen. What bothers me is that these seem to be precisely the kind of apps that Microsoft wants developers to create with the Metro UI. Metro IE10 isn't even as powerful as Mobile Safari.
    Monday, September 26, 2011 11:37 PM
  • Hello, Just something : we're future buyers, we try to help Microsoft by report problems we find (free norebund), I hope MSDN can ear and accept to discuss and try to find "soluce" with problems we report.

    Regards.

    Anael

    Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:40 PM
  • Well, I for one as a future customer would like to have an option of "real Choice" I have no touch screen and can not afford such a device. There are issues that I dislike about the "metro scheme" . but with that aside, Give me back my AVCHD codecs and there will be peace in the land. If Not then every one with HD cams will not be enticed to up grade. Microsoft, you say your listening, We Consumers know what we want and don't want and were tired of what you want being crammed down our throats. I too have enabled the "Red Pill" thing, reason being.. It simply isn't needed for me..I don't need fancy looking things like the weather thing, ok I like the piano, but that is the only ap I like...all he rest I have no use for... I am also running the fall back version as there are many things I like and are just faster. one thing though that I am dismayed about is that you removed the MPEG-2 and thus you removed the DVD Maker.. You had it in Windows 7, though we had to find it :) As Beta testers we understand the need to limit features, but, there comes a time, when eh, we need things just to work. oh and that IE thing in the MUI Metro thing...it needs access to flash really bad .I will be looking forward to the Release Candidate....But so Far, I recommended this to a friend who uses a touch device, and he likes it very much. So I think our views are and will be swayed by what it is were using. I am not against change, we do need change that I will not disagree with. But what we need is fair choice. Also what you really need to do MS is change the speed at which Live Movie Maker takes to render video as well. I am surprised you didn't include a future, movie maker...one is really needed.
    Monday, January 16, 2012 6:23 PM
  • Microsoft, you say your listening, We Consumers know what we want and don't want and were tired of what you want being crammed down our throats.


    It's not that bad. Microsoft is usually good at design. I'm surprised they don't understand by now why Metro doesn't work for regular PCs. This forum isn't really the best way to say something to Microsoft (and your post is full of spelling and grammar mistakes). If Windows 8 doesn't play DVDs, it might be because it's pre-release software. Microsoft has stated that some features that existed in Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not in the Developer Preview but will be in the final release, such as Media Center.

     I am surprised you didn't include a future, movie maker...one is really needed.

     Should "future" say "feature?" Actually, Windows Vista included most of what is now the Windows Live Essentials apps as part of the operating system. I really think they need to be brought back or made optional during Windows installation - those of us who install Windows ourselves don't need to waste our time downloading Windows features, and many OEMs preinstall Windows Live Essentials on their computers.

    Monday, January 16, 2012 8:28 PM
  • Microsoft, you say your listening, We Consumers know what we want and don't want and were tired of what you want being crammed down our throats.


    It's not that bad. Microsoft is usually good at design. I'm surprised they don't understand by now why Metro doesn't work for regular PCs. This forum isn't really the best way to say something to Microsoft (and your post is full of spelling and grammar mistakes). If Windows 8 doesn't play DVDs, it might be because it's pre-release software. Microsoft has stated that some features that existed in Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not in the Developer Preview but will be in the final release, such as Media Center.

     I am surprised you didn't include a future, movie maker...one is really needed.

     Should "future" say "feature?" Actually, Windows Vista included most of what is now the Windows Live Essentials apps as part of the operating system. I really think they need to be brought back or made optional during Windows installation - those of us who install Windows ourselves don't need to waste our time downloading Windows features, and many OEMs pre-install Windows Live Essentials on their computers.

    yeah I agree, I am on vista testing something and I found out that PMB Works on it. I can't view the movies through the normal browser but, I can at least trans-code the videos. Windows developer I guess has that blocked. I do agree , Movie Maker like the one in Vista, and DVD maker ( found it in Windows 7 and can trans code HD Video to DVD simple)..(Non HD) . and as for Metro and PC, I had to put the courser into "Glide mode" as it was making my arm sore, and thus I went back to the more traditional lap top. It may me ergonomically correct for tap users, but not so for those of us using touch pads and mice. as for my grammar, eh that happens when brain goes faster then I can type lol. and distracted with a baby :) I think as a good beta tester we need to revert back to versions of windows just to see what was working and how it worked..like in Vista PMB (Sony's Specialized software)works I can trans-code and such, windows 7, well the only time I need it is when I am sending videos back to the camera. eh and in Windows 8..eh..er..um..Well, it is just flat broken. I think Microsoft did some things under the hood to ensure the breaks were put on. I will be awaiting for the release candidate..oh, I tried that link for reporting errors...oops..it was a no go..
    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:09 AM
  • Okay - why is WinRT not usable for desktop applications?

    Put simply, in large type so that people who use only one app or source of information at a time can understand it, there are some jobs that require a LOT OF COMPLEX INFORMATION to do, and Metro doesn't deliver it.

     

    These are difficult tasks, where the computer user must have access to all that information, from a number of sources,  SIMULTANEOUSLY to accomplish their job - their value-add process.  A good example of this kind of activity is software engineering.  Anyone creating software needs documentation, specifications, procedures, development suites, test apps, plus the normal office automation, all there. 

     

    Though some find it distasteful and some simply can't do it, there are a lot of folks who actually MULTITASK as well.  IT people do this - they don't get the luxury of playing with one simple app at a time.

     

    Ask anyone who works with multiple monitors why they have multiple monitors some time. Why do I have 2 monitors? Because there's not room for 3!

     

    In short, the people who do the real, complex work of the world need the most complex desktop environment their systems can manage.  Simpler is not better!

    YUP those working in the video editing field often need 2 monitors.

     

    -Noel

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:34 PM
  • Don't forget that it was this "several years from now" focus that killed Windows Vista in the marketplace. Vista was a great OS, one of my all-time favorites, but it was launched about a year earlier than it should have been and had terrible support from third party developers. If Windows 7 had come out in 2007 and Windows Vista had come out in 2009, we would probably be talking about how bad Windows 7 was and how good Windows Vista was. There are plenty of things Vista does better than Windows 7. As for future computers, most people don't want to use touchscreens on a computer in front of their face, and I doubt that tablets are going to replace PC's entirely. People need a physical keyboard to type on, and there are no laptops or tablets on the market that can match the power of a desktop. The laptops that can do this might as well not be laptops at all.
    I can agree to that, I am using vista on hard ware that was manufactured for Win 7, and Vista has been exceedingly stable. In fact, i think that if many were to re-visit vista on Today's machines, i think Microsoft might have issues. Good thing many people keep there heads buried in the sand. Currently I have the ability to dual boot. I can also create nice videos and have a free trans-coder that works in both WIN8 as well as vista Ultimate 64 bit. I think what people have failed to see, is that there <removed abuse> on "eye candy" and were losing functionality. As I said once before, pretty packages mean nothing to me. i want a machine with a heart beat.. I want a machine whcih give me what I pay for. I am not going to spend 300 bucks on some piece of software, that can't render then newest technology for video. or even the older MPG at that. And I will change over to the Big "L" if it means to have a machine that can d what I want it to do. and I will say this. I have used Big "L" for video creation. And if Apple can create software that can render AVCHD fast, then MS needs to get on the ball. We consumers don't want something stripped down, we d not want EYE candy, we want form and function to flow as one. It's not that I do not like the UI approach, but it there just better be some meet to the OS. I also stick with what a true upgrade is. as defined . it is adding new things as well as improving up on technology that already is here. AVCHD is here to stay. and I sure in <removed abuse> don't plan on buying extra <remove abuse> just to use it..I will change my OS ...
    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:49 PM
  • @ASUSTUV4x

    I once suggested to Microsoft that they use the WinRT platform to create "Aero-style desktop apps," which would combine the ease of use of the desktop with the stability and security of Metro.

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:14 PM