locked
4 changes to turn win8 in the best OS ever

    General discussion

  • Hey,

    I have been using win8 DP since day 1 now.  I've done some hello-world-type development on WinRT as well.  I use a regular desktop without touchscreens.  I've also tested out the DP at a friend's house who does have a touchscreen.  Overall, I think MSFT has layed a great foundation for a new path in windows.  I think this has great potential.  The way I think about this after these couple of days, I think win8 could be tremendously improved by implementing 4 changes, which I think would also address quite some concerns and issues many users seem to have.

     

    1.  Extend WinRT to also be used in desktop applications.  I think we can all agree that it would be a lot more fun and clean to develop with WinRT instead of win32 and COM (provided, off course, that the same goals can be accomplished - and more).  Extending WinRT to also make it possible on desktop applications (wheter they are written in .NET or C++) would be a nice first step to get rid of win32/COM in the long run.

     

    2.  Make it possible to close Metro apps manually.  I dig the whole suspended and auto-terminate thing and I think it's a nice features that needs to stay in there.  But there is no reason whatsoever why we wouldn't also be capable of closing our apps manually without firing up task manager.  There are BIG issues with app-switching in the current implementation.  This manual closing of apps absolutely needs to be implemented.  I know other threads exist about this.  That's ok, it can't be emphasized enough.

     

    3. Make Metro (and metro apps) unavailable if you do not have a touchscreen. 

    4. Make the desktop (and all desktop applications) unavailable when no keyboard or mouse is present/connected.   If the tablet you use is a hybrid (= can be transformed into laptop or 'docked' or whatever), then enable the desktop when the tablet is transformed/docked/connected to mouse/keyboard.

     

    I wish to further motivate points 3 and 4.  Consider a game that can only be played with a joystick.  The game would refuse to boot if no joystick is connected, right?  The same should go for metro.  If you don't have a touchscreen, then there is NO point at all in having a touch-first UI.  Likewise, if you are on a tablet-only (no mouse, keyboard), then there is NO point at all in using anything other then a touch-first UI.

    Having both ONLY makes sense if you are on a machine that HAS both.  People often say "I'm not gonna start reaching out to touch my monitor!!".  Which is true if you don't have a touch monitor, lol.  It's simple really... you buy a touch monitor if you...want to touch your monitor.

    These changes, imo, would go a LONG way to making win8 absolutely amazing.

    An OS that not only supports all your hardware, but which also ADAPTS to your hardware.

    I'ld buy that system in an instant.

     

    Any thoughts?

     


    Monday, September 19, 2011 11:39 AM

All replies

  • 1. WinRT is essentially designed to stay away from the Win32 environment. Even basic ideas of overlapping windows... WinRT has no facility for them. Microsoft will (possibly justifiably) say that existing tools already provide a way to create rich desktop applications.

    2. In-memory suspended apps are just an extension of the already useful 'cache just about every piece of data passing through the IO bus' mentality. Where that cached data 'might' be needed (and thus worth caching), in-memory suspended apps will 'probably' be needed. Surely that makes them ideal targets to keep close to the CPU?

    3. The success (or failure) of Metro depends on app developers. App developers *must* reach the widest possible audience. Anything that prevents that, such as a user preference telling the system "I don't want any Metro stuff, thanks" is going to hurt Windows 8. Obviously, there *will* be a way to achieve this otherwise there will be no Windows 8 PC's in an office environment.

    I cannot think of a persuasive argument for why I would not like to enjoy some Metro apps using keyboard and mouse for input, especially where they are so easily navigable with these antiquated devices.

    4. Wouldn't we rather have a desktop navigable by touch? It may not be enormously efficient (compared to mouse + keyboard), but there are occasions I will need to use Remote Desktop into Windows 7 (and Windows XP, *and* Windows 2000, more's the pity) PC's for some quick admin activity. It is not inconceivable that this will need to be achieved using a small tablet device.

     

    If you want to opt-out of a touch-first interface, you need to suggest an alternative that will not lock me out from the (soon to be, I'm sure) tens of thousands of Metro apps!

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:14 PM
  • 3 & 4 are not workable. You can use desktop applications with touch screens, and you can use metro with a mouse. Why would you want Windows deliberately crippled? Especially the idea for hybrids, what if you are working on something in either metro/desktop then dock/undock? You'd be unable to continue working on it.

    As the UI currently is, it is a bit clumsy (though the desktop less so, Windows 7 and the Ribbon went a long way towards making it usable with touch). But it's not unusable, so why force it to be so? Joystick games can be played by a mouse, to follow your example. Adapting is one thing, limiting/crippling is another.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:17 PM
  • 1.  Perhaps.  That's also why I used the word "extend".  I saw these 2 slides in one of the many sessions, holding some C# code to work with the webcam.  In WinRT, you have this neat little object that you can just call to manipulate the webcam.  In the "old-school" C#, you have bunch of unreadable code making use of disgusting win32 calls.  Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be able to use the neat little WinRT object?

     

    2. I explicitly stated that I like the way windows handles unclosed apps and the feature should remain.  But have you tried using alt-tab after opening every metro app on your system?  I dare you to open all the metro apps once and then try and use snap to dock the weather app next to your desktop without using your keyboard.  Both these problems would vanish with a 'close' option.  And you'ld still have to suspending feature if you CHOOSE not to close your app.  I fail to see the problem.

     

    3. "The success (or failure) of Metro depends on app developers"  That's what they said about windows 7 tablets.  Guess why the sales of those things were a disaster.

     

    "If you want to opt-out of a touch-first interface, you need to suggest an alternative that will not lock me out from the (soon to be, I'm sure) tens of thousands of Metro apps!"

     

    The way I see it, you lock yourself out by not having a touchscreen.

    Seems very reasonable to me: you need a touch device to use touch technology.

    I've been using win8 for a week now at home.  The last two days, I found myself not leaving the desktop at all (except when pressing F5 in visual studio 2011).  I see no use for having a fullscreen application "in my face" on either of my 28" monitors.  This doesn't feel right at all.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:36 PM
  • I like your though process on this, its refreshing to see somebody genuinely thinking about it rather than trying to berate reviewers for "not understanding touch is the future".

    The one thing I don't want to get lost is mentioned in another post I made on the subject (see my post "A desktop is not a tablet, and a tablet is not a desktop (or laptop)"

    In addition to disabling Metro for non-touch systems, it is also VERY important (to me anyway) that the rest of the UI not suffer from having "made room" for touch.  The premise is a simple one, a finger is much bigger than a mouse pointer, so in order to make other parts of the UI touch-compatible the design would have to increase the distance between elements.  I expressly do NOT want to pay this "real estate" penalty on a system without any touch capability, and I'd like further control to disable touch on a touch-capable system to gain back this "real estate" there as well.

    Microsoft tends to force aspects of the UI on their users, for example, there were howls (that I didn't agree with) about making the classic start menu available.  I LIKE the W7 layout, and the last thing I wanted to do was configure it so it looked like I was working in XP classic for even more years of my life.  But that shouldn't be something MS enforces, they should be providing a totally customizable UI so the user can set it up how THEY want.

    It might even be interesting to provide a UI control panel that had a submit button on it so details of the interface could be shared with MS (and maybe even packaged in some fashion for other users, bear with me on this...), think of the submit button as a real world ongoing usability study.  MS could analyze the submissions, catalog common or similar elements, and create UI "skins" essentially tailor made (but still further customizable) for various user "types".

    On the "bear with me" part, I understand the tech-support nature of having some idea what the UI is like so you can guide people to help them solve problems.  The answer here is simple, a tech support call begins with "I'd like you to select the factory default UI so I can assist you easier", once the problem is solved the user can reset the UI to their saved customized version or versions and keep rocking.

    To me, what I've outlined above defines upgrade.  Don't decide for me what I want or need, design a way for me to interact with system elements in a way I choose to.  I might even have several UI profiles I use based on tasks, and THAT should be the future of computing (flexibility) not locking users into something some will hate, some will love, and some will be uncommitted.

    The premise is clear, the elements we click on are not the actual programs or subroutines that execute based on that click or drag, they are areas that represent hotspots that in effect call said functionality.  Why, after all these years, with all these advances, and with all these talented programmers are OS vendors still trying to create workspaces that cannot ever and will not ever satisfy everyone?  Why NOT address the fact that I use several workspace layouts depending on what I'm doing in Photoshop, Premiere, or other apps?

    I want flexibility not someone elses "vision".  I loved the change from XP to Vista/W7 not because it was inherently more useful (even though parts are) but because I was flat out tired of looking at XP.  There are things I'd change in the W7 UI right now if I could, but MS trys to keep this locked down for some reason.  Are we dealing with the arrogance of the design team that sets up the UI?  Are their ideas so groundbreaking and important that I dare not exert any control over their version of "perfection"?

    A good design team of a dozen people could whip out a UI editor in a couple of months tops, why has this team not been part of Windows development all along?

    DAS

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:39 PM
  • "Why would you want Windows deliberately crippled?"

    Crippled?  The way I see it, a full screen touch-based application on my 28" non-touch monitor is what's crippling my system...

    "what if you are working on something in either metro/desktop then dock/undock? You'd be unable to continue working on it."

    Well, like I said...  I see no use whatsoever for desktop applications on touch-only devices or vice versa.  So the answer is simply: I wouldn't continue working on it.  If I would need to continue working on it... I would, and thus not undock.  Undocking the tablet to me means just the same as leaving the desktop.

     

    "But it's not unusable, so why force it to be so?"

     

    Windows 7 also isn't "unusable" on a tablet, yet nobody is buying those... why is that, do you think?

    Talking about forcing... that's exactly what's happening here... we are being FORCED a touch UI on a non-touch environment.  And that is what the mistake is.  It's just as bad as forcing a non-touch UI on a touch-only device.

    I do expect msft to address some of these issues in the coming year though.  Wheter it is solved with things like I suggested or not, I dunno - but leaving it as-is would be a mistake imo.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:44 PM
  • 1. I hear you, I really do! Perhaps we will see some expansion of .NET to bring the advantages enjoyed by WinRT to the desktop environment.

    2. You have me somewhat persuaded. I'm sure this 'feature' will be explored as Win 8 moves through beta phase.

    3. They were a disaster because they were dreadfully underpowered and offered nothing of value to users.

    Metro is not about 'touch, or be damned'. Mouse and keyboard is still a very usable input method for Metro apps. I think the problem you're experiencing is that it just doesn't suit *you*.

    My mileage varies!

    Monday, September 19, 2011 12:55 PM
  • To throw my 2 cents worth in here - I'd hate to see the Metro apps removed for desktop users. After a few days of using 8, I've come to really like the Metro UI and apps in ADDITION to my desktop apps. I do have a few complaints though.

    1) I like having all the apps I use on the new Start screen and being able to move around tiles and unpin the apps I don't use, but that screen really needs some work. To start with it is plain ugly - you should be able to change the color appearance and even have it so you can have backgrounds like with desktop. Plus the tiles should be scalable. I like very small tiles, the two choices available now are just to large.

    2) There should be a way to display a list of all your desktop apps easily from the desktop Start button like you can in all previous versions. Having to jump through hoops like you do now is ridiculous. To me it is a step backwards.

    3) They should make basic tasks (such as shutdown) easily available at the click of the mouse. Once again you have to jump through hoops.

    Now I understand this is just a developers preview and a lot of this will be ironed out in the end, but Microsoft needs to keep ease of use for desktop users in mind. You shouldn't have to remember workarounds and keystroke combinations to do what you need to do.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 1:07 PM
  • It's ironic, but I actually agree that loosing all metro applications/features on a non-touch system might be painfull or unfortunate.

    But I still consider it the right thing to do.

    To be honest, I absolutely loath the idea of full screen apps on my 28" monitor.  Hell, I bought 28" monitors for a reason... and that reason was NOT to see only 1 app at a time (no, the snap feature is not a worthy alternative).

    I seriously believe the windows team is on the right path here.  They did some amazing work.

    But the system as a whole doesn't "feel right" yet.  It's completely unclear how I need to go about deciding to write a desktop or metro application as it is now.

    All of you would tell me:

    - is it an application meant for keyboard/mouse in a desktop setting/environment?  Ok, desktop app.

    - is it an application meant for touch/tablet use?  Ok, metro app.

     

    And there you have my reasons for suggesting points 3 and 4.  If THAT is the criteria by which one decides to build a desktop vs a metro app, then I wonder what the Metro stuff is doing on my non-touch-enabled desktop with 2 28" monitors...

    It's just not consistent.


    Monday, September 19, 2011 1:20 PM
  • 3. They were a disaster because they were dreadfully underpowered and offered nothing of value to users.

    Metro is not about 'touch, or be damned'. Mouse and keyboard is still a very usable input method for Metro apps. I think the problem you're experiencing is that it just doesn't suit *you*.

    My mileage varies!

    Actually, they were a disaster because it pushed a desktop (keyb + mouse) paradigm unto a touch paradigm.  And the two simply are different beasts.  Touch enabled monitors weren't exactly a success either, so computing power certainly wasn't the root cause here.

    And no, the problem is not that it doesn't suit "me".  And to be honest, it's a bit shortsighted of you to think that. 

    I'm a software engineer myself and have been for many years.  I've had my share of education in GUI design, user experience, etc.

    A full screen "touch-first" application with 48pt fonts on a 28" non-touch-enabled monitor is simply ridiculous.

    Does it add to my productivity?  No.
    Does it help me with multi-tasking?  Hell no.

    I'm open minded, mind you.  Perhaps there is something I'm missing...  But I'm having the hardest time finding a reasonable answer to this question:

    Why would I want a "full-screen-only", "touch-optimised" (=big icons, big fonts, much space between commands,...) productivity application in a desktop setting with NO touch-enabled monitors?

    How would I benefit from this?  How would it help me?

    Again, I can see those problems going away instantly if I DO have touchscreens.  And I WILL be buying those once Win8 is released, so I won't even have that problem (so much for the 'it doesn't fit *me*').

    But still, those questions need answers.  I don't see my customers (big enterprises with +5000 workstations) equip all their employees with touchscreens...

    Monday, September 19, 2011 1:37 PM
  • I'll agree with not being able to close Metro applications. I got my girlfriend to play with Windows 8 over the weekend and that was one of her first complaints. Even though those apps are suspended, we still saw a decline in performance (on a HP Pavillion dv6000 with 3 GB of RAM!).

    There's also way too big of a reliance on HD monitors at this point. Why can't you do the two-app dock with a screen of 1280x800? Using Socialite was a nightmare because of it. I don't want that to be the only application on my screen, rather a nice sidebar, no matter WHAT the resolution.

    Monday, September 19, 2011 1:39 PM
  • WolfPackfan:

    I'm being serious not sarcastic here, but what does the Metro style app "bring to the desktop"?  I use multi-tasking not because I can, but because it is positively indespensible to the way I work.  In essence, you really can't multi-task metro apps, the design is such that they go stale when they lose focus.

    Obviously we'll see as more apps get developed, but I don't see "productivity" as a Metro function.  Lets say we're talking about doing a data entry function.  I get data from a network share and I manipulate said data and save my work.  In my way of working, I might use several different application windows as I process that data, and might even change one or more of those data sets in those "support" windows before comitting those changes to the network share data processing mentioned at the start.  How does this "work" for Metro? 

    The disconnect it seems to me, comes from people with tablet and smartphones mistaking surfing, email, and other viewing functions with "productivity".  I crunch a lot of data, write a lot of scripts, and write end-user documentation as a normal course of my business day.  If I want to see the weather, I "peek" at the weather gadget.  Stocks?  Same thing.  RSS and other mostly news and current events sorts of things?  My workday deoesn't really include time for what passes as "productivity" in a smartphone or tablet sense.

    And thats what bothers me.  Suddenly, it seems like what I consider as time-wasting information overload (facebook, feeds, etc..) is being "sold" as the "new productivity".  And even if I'm wrong and the line hasn't been blurred to that degree yet, the move is definitely away from what I will term "traditional computing" (the stuff that makes money), to occupying time with what amounts to little more than a hand-held interface.

    I can afford a touchpad, but I have no interest in one.  From time to time I consider it might be nice to surf from my easy chair, but then I'm quickly brought back to reality where I'm forced to ask myself the question "why would I want a hand-held device when I've got a laptop I could be doing real work on when an idea pops into my mind?"

    Personally, I can't imagine an app that would make me want to go out and buy a touch-capable monitor for my desktop.  There is nothing natural about reaching up to touch the screen, and I've spent decades training myself and others to keep their grubby fingers off my screen.  The laptop is a different story, at some point I could see paying extra fro touch capability, but right now, I just don't need it.

    The solution should be simple:  Enable or disable touch based on user preference.  But in doing so, don't make the non-touch people "pay" for space required for oversized touch elements, nor hamstring the touch user by having the content spaced too closely for touch to work comfortably.  So in one sentence I described the issue, the disparate UI's must be optional and dynamic.  If I don't want touch, then I don't want a ribbon element to be spaced 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch away to make room for a finger.  If I want touch, you can't expect me to work with element spacing as tight as the office 2007 ribbon.

    Therein lies the problem.  Without tremendous effort in a genuinely effective design for BOTH touch and non-touch, somebody is going to be "paying" for someone elses convenience.  I make money without touch and can't even see how touch would help me personally, but if MS doesn't execute this perfectly, they could either hamstring traditional computing at the expense of touch, or vice-versa. 

    DAS

    Monday, September 19, 2011 2:07 PM
  • I do not see why the Metro UI should be made unavailable to users of regular desktops;

    First there could be situations where I would use this GUI even without a Touch screen

     

    Second what we are seeing here is the first iteration of the new GUI; I am sure it will be fine-tuned before W8 reach RTM; even more important is the fact that the GUI development will continue after RTM and will be more and more advanced in future Windows OS releases. It is like the Ribbon Ui in Office: its implementation in Office 2010 is much better than in 2007 Edition.

     

    I totally agree about the need to be able to close open apps though.

    Have a nice day

    Fritzly


    Fritzly
    Monday, September 19, 2011 4:09 PM
  • I do not see why the Metro UI should be made unavailable to users of regular desktops;

    First there could be situations where I would use this GUI even without a Touch screen

     

    Second what we are seeing here is the first iteration of the new GUI; I am sure it will be fine-tuned before W8 reach RTM; even more important is the fact that the GUI development will continue after RTM and will be more and more advanced in future Windows OS releases. It is like the Ribbon Ui in Office: its implementation in Office 2010 is much better than in 2007 Edition.


    Fritzly

    Can you give me an example of a situation where you would want to use a metro UI on your big non-touchable desktop monitors?  

    And off course I realise that this is an early release and that there's another full year of development coming before release - and afterwards with service packs.

    But when I see how msft pushes everyone to build metro applications, doesn't say a word about how desktop fits in all of this and has the start button firing up a full screen menu of live tiles...  That gives me little hope.

     

    Again, I wish to emphasize that I LOVE the work they've done and I really see great value in a "one OS to rule them all" and the entire metro thing (all included) for touch-first UI's.  I absolutely LOVE it.

    I just don't want to pay a penalty for that in my beloved desktop.  The place where I do real work.

     

    Monday, September 19, 2011 8:35 PM
  • Well, even with just one monitor, and yes I have two of them as well, I would not mind to have Metro as a desktop showing me useful information like stock, weather etc. and direct links to the programs I use most often. If  I had to do something different just clicking "desktop" would give me the "Classic" desktop.

    Yes I could use gadgets to monitor the info I mentioned above and pinpoint icons to the "SuperBar" but again as long MS will allow us to "really" close apps, bring up front a tile to hibernate/shut down the computer etc. I do not see the need to deny a desktop user an UI that he/she could find useful, have a chance to get acquainted to and having a smooth back and forth experience between his/her desktop and laptop/Tablet. I use both a desktop and a Tablet and having a complete different UI would, in the long term, detrimental to my experience.

    Lock the OS to specific hardware specs does not seem to work well: remember when MediaCenter was only available to OEM and for specific hardware only: MS wasted a lot of time when they could have established Windows as a perfect hub for entertainment.  

    Even if MS would block the Metro UI from showing on desktop this would not bring you back the old "start menu" with a list available programs etc. so to speak you would have a desktop with only the disadvantages of W8.

     


    Fritzly
    Monday, September 19, 2011 9:28 PM
  • 3. Make Metro (and metro apps) unavailable if you do not have a touchscreen. 

     

    Any thoughts?

     

    Here are my thoughts. I disagree with number three. I have a Thinkpad Edge E520 (no touch screen) and I love the metro interface. I would want it to stay.

    I understand if some people just want to ditch it, and for that, I think that there should be a switch to turn it off. But I don't think that they should make it completely unavailable if you don't have a touch screen. I hate things that deny access to certain features just because you don't have the correct hardware.

     

    Thanks,

    Joshua



    Monday, September 19, 2011 9:46 PM
  • Here's a potentially simple solution:

    Allow Metro apps to be 'windowed' when

    • There is no touch hardware present, or
    • Screen resolution is higher than a certain size, or
    • The user has indicated through an option that they want this functionality

    Media Center is, in my opinion, a GREAT example of how a Metro apps should work; it works well with mouse, keyboard, touch and even remote control, whether it's full-screen or windowed.

    In the demonstration videos I've seen so far, the Desktop interface is described as 'just another app'. While this might be a fine thing to say for a tablet device it should not be so for a desktop device where Metro itself should be 'just another app' (in a window)...


    string fakeEmail="jim.duncan@sharesquared.spam.com"; string realEmail=fakeEmail.Replace(".spam","")
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:33 AM
  • "Why would you want Windows deliberately crippled?"

    Crippled?  The way I see it, a full screen touch-based application on my 28" non-touch monitor is what's crippling my system...

    It's crippled because you are removing functionality (ie. Every Metro application) for no gain. The whole idea is that there is as little distinction as possible between tablet and desktop/laptop computers. Metro is harder to use with a mouse than with touch, sure. But it can fairly easily be improved (for example, better scaling for larger screens, and other UI improvements). If you are a heavy desktop user, then in reality you would rarely be seeing the metro screen anyway. Pin applications you want to the taskbar, or press windows and start typing to search. I don't often linger on the start screen, but I want the option to do so (and I really like the RSS reader). If I had a tablet, I'd love the power of full desktop applications.

    "what if you are working on something in either metro/desktop then dock/undock? You'd be unable to continue working on it."

    Well, like I said...  I see no use whatsoever for desktop applications on touch-only devices or vice versa.  So the answer is simply: I wouldn't continue working on it.  If I would need to continue working on it... I would, and thus not undock.  Undocking the tablet to me means just the same as leaving the desktop.

    You seem oblivious to some fairly major reasons to keep both. Undocking a tablet is it's major advantage over desktops, yet you are saying we should completely ignore this by treating a device as two seperate computers (docked and undocked) with no usable interaction between the two. Furthermore, letting desktop users have the same applications as tablet users is a definite plus, and having tablets and Desktops nearly identical means people are almost instantly familiar with either version.

    You're in the middle of something, and are called to a meeting. If windows were changed, you'd have to either leave your tablet behind, or restart/close everything. Just one example.

    "But it's not unusable, so why force it to be so?"

     Windows 7 also isn't "unusable" on a tablet, yet nobody is buying those... why is that, do you think?

    Because it doesn't have a simple alternate interface like metro, but backed by the full power of windows. How many people have you heard brush aside the thought of tablets (especially in business) because of the limitations of applications in the current ecosystem? Also, hardware is just now allowing fully fledged tablets to emerge.

    Talking about forcing... that's exactly what's happening here... we are being FORCED a touch UI on a non-touch environment.  And that is what the mistake is.  It's just as bad as forcing a non-touch UI on a touch-only device.

    I'd rather have a feature forced on me than the removal of a feature forced on me (look at the reaction to Final Cut Pro X from Apple).

    but leaving it as-is would be a mistake imo.

    I agree in the sense of the general UI at the moment needs work. But this is a developer preview, not a user preview, so I'm happy to give MS the benefit of the doubt until the beta rolls around.


    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:44 AM
  •  If you are a heavy desktop user, then in reality you would rarely be seeing the metro screen anyway.

    You will rarely be seeing metro applications, perhaps.  Because you wouldn't be starting them anyway.

    However, this does not go for metro itself - the start menu, control panel, search, ...  Sooner or later, that thing is gonna pop-up full screen and cover your entire desktop.  This hurts your productivity.  There is no need whatsoever for full screen stuff with a +34pt font on your desktop monitor. 

    It's crippled because you are removing functionality (ie. Every Metro application) for no gain.

    No, it's crippled because they are forcefully adding functionality that has no gain and which is covering up other functionality.  What do I "gain" from metro on my non-touch desktop? 
    It should be an option at least.  And I'ld say that if you don't have a touch device, then traditional windows should be defaulted.

    letting desktop users have the same applications as tablet users is a definite plus

    Absolutely.  I just don't see that working if it's implemented like in the preview.  They took the desktop, removed the startmenu, put it in a box and hid it away in the metro eco-system.  As it stands now, the two are completely different worlds.  There is NO integration between both.  Yet, the desktop is clearly subject to metro and not equal to it. 

    As if it would have been so much trouble to keep the desktop intact and have an additional button somewhere to return to metro...  I'ld settle for such a solution as well.  I want it to be a clear decision on my part to return to metro and full screen applications.  Not on the part of windows.

    I guess I could abstract all my concerns into one: I see msft taking away my control over the pc and handing it over to windows.

     

    I'm happy to give MS the benefit of the doubt until the beta rolls around

    I'm not.  Because if this stuff gets into the beta, then it will be there to stay. 

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:12 AM
  • I think the metro interface would

    serve a good portion of windows users even on a desktop because of its simplicity it might even

    attract more people to use pc disabled elderly etc

    I would not be against the option to turn it on or off

    but don't get all upset already its a new idea/feature give it a chance

    I prefer desktop myself but metro could serve a very good purpose

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:57 AM
  • I think the metro interface would

    serve a good portion of windows users even on a desktop because of its simplicity it might even

    attract more people to use pc disabled elderly etc


    You consider metro on a desktop to be good for "the disabled and the elderly"... 

    I think that speaks volumes.

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:17 AM
  • I agree entirely
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:29 AM
  • I like the Metro Screen for Tablets and I think it will be great for Novice and simple users (AKA the vast majority) on regular computers.  However as a poweruser I definitely see how it is no where near as productive as the traditional desktop, but here is the great part.  THE DESKTOP IS STILL THERE!!! It hasn't gone anywhere you can still launch into no problem and guess what if you don't turn off your computer like most people and just simply put it to sleep it comes right back up into the desktop.  I hardly ever see the immersive interface unless I have to search for something and in those cases it actually is more productive for me because it shows more results!  I rarely used the start menu before and that hasn't changed on Windows 8.  I really don't know why you are so focused on something that you will only rarely see in day to day usage.  Be honest with yourself how many minutes of the day do you actually in the start menu or control center, maybe 5 minutes?.  I personally have gone weeks without entering either.  They have made some pretty major good changes in the Desktop too.  The Funny thing is I actually usually run things full screened or split screened anyhow.  I may have multiple windows open but I usually only work with two or three (on a second monitor) at the most.  I use visual studio, Photoshop and such all the time and don't know why you wouldn't want those full screened.  My biggest problem with metro was loss of the superbar, too much empty space, the weird side scrolling aspect, and too little window options (I wanted a 50/50 and 25/50/25 options).  But for the most part I just don't use it on my desktop and only rarely use it on my touchscreen laptop and the fact that it is there does not bother me one bit. 

    On a different note, The immersive interface my be touch first but works well with a traditional mouse and keyboard (With some caveates).  I highly doubt they intend the vast majority to get touch screen monitors on their Desktop or even laptop computers.  That is silly, more than likely you will see multitouch trackpads and such.  I have seen some demos of these with Windows 8 and they took the interface to a whole nother level.

    On Third note.  I agree about WinRT being ported to the desktop or better yet depreciate Win32 as a whole to a VM and introduce a new WinRT Windowed Power desktop built from the ground up for power users.

    Friday, December 9, 2011 3:32 PM
  • Please don't listen to this guy ! .... just make it more smother and less sparkely(which it is now ... enableing 98 theme would be good too :) ... i have been using that theme forever ) and it will be great to do acual work ...
    Friday, December 9, 2011 3:50 PM