Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode? I can already make apps fullscreen if I want, but I definitely don't want to be limited to only fullscreen mode.
So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?
To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own.
> Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode?
Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not.
> So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?
Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.
How? Seriously?
I'm using both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 (same .. thing, for this comparison) and I fail to see what you mean.
In Windows 7 I did these steps to launch an application:
- Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button
- Type application name
- Enter
In Windows 8 / Windows Server 2012 I need these steps:
- Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button
- Type application name
- Enter
Yeah, the UI is different while I type. But it's on the same level as moving from Launchy on Windows XP to just using the start menu in Windows 7: The interface is really just presentation and not that relevant.
Metro isn't good for anything else, for all I can tell. There's no bait. It's .. useless. First thing to do is Windows/Super+D to get to the desktop. There you need Windows/Super for the 'launcher', Windows/Super + w for a launcher for the control panel/settings apps and Windows/Super + x (neat shortcuts, thing lean start menu) and Windows/Super + i (uhm.. For .. shutdown? That's what I use that for).
So as a user of two 'metro' platforms I disagree heavily with your opinion. I don't think that this is happening, I don't think that this could happen and I really, really doubt that someone placed a bet on this, coming from their mobile platform.
FUD.
Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not.
FUD.
Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.
Incorrect.
Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to settle a personal vendetta.
>FUD.
I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an argument to support your "FUD" assertion.
There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds. You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two usage modes in one device.
> Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen?
Because it's better [1].
(I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences)
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.)
> Because it's better [1].
I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town.
[1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.
Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?
The fact is, Microsoft hasn't given a real good reason why Metro should exist on the desktop.
Examples:
Some would say, for example, that Google's Chrome browser is evil because Google wants to monopolize the internet -- but Chrome is a very good browser, it's opinionated, but a successful product, so people can safely ignore concerns about Google's incursion into the browser space.
Another good example is Apple's iMessage which makes texts free for iPhone users to each other. Again, by offering cost savings to the end user, Apple bolsters iPhone appeal in ways that greatly offset whatever it costs them to get mobile operators like AT&T to provide this feature (I'm sure it's not free to Apple). Some would argue that this preferential pricing is unfair to smaller handset manufacturers like LG or HTC as it would be impossible for say, free texts from Android to Android and HTC to HTC is too small for anyone to care.
If you're so pro-Metro here, you need to explain what advantages it provides to the end user. Right now, it's looks like a giant roadblock to your average desktop user.
Quote:
You're used to the old way. You're comfortable with the old way. You like the old way. So do I. That's not a bad thing, and Microsoft left in the desktop for people like you and me (and most others on this forum). Nothing has changed there. I run Windows 8 on my laptop and spend 99% of my time on the desktop like it's Windows 7 with some nice new features added on (and a better security model).
However, a great number of computer users seem to prefer the simplistic style of iOS or Android. It lets them focus on one task using a very simple menu to get from one app to another. They don't need multiple windows overlapping each other, and they don't need tiling window managers. They don't want multiple open windows distracting them. This is why the iPad was made, this is why Android tablets are made, and this is why Windows 8 and Windows RT were made.
For us, we'll complain about the limitations of the Metro UI then switch to the desktop and forget about it. For them, they'll stick to the RT components, possibly momentarily confused by the drastic change from Windows 7 to Windows 8, then settle in and forget they're using a PC. That's probably a good thing. The last thing these users need is their personal IT guy going on and on about how Windows 8 is awful and the RT components are awful and it shouldn't be used. How long have we all spent trying to teach our parents/grandparents how to get around in Outlook and Firefox, writing down a list of steps they'll need to take to get to their email, or how to bring up the new picture of their grandkids? I actually bought my grandma an iPad so I wouldn't need to do remote support over the phone anymore. 5 minutes of instruction and she was ready to go.
I think RT will be a good thing for your average user. I think it will be a mild grumbling point for power users, deserving no where near the current amount of vitriol spewed on the Internet. Think of the RT stuff as an iPad built into (and complimenting rather than replacing) your desktop. You don't have to use it.
Why would I want 2 different operating systems if the underlying goal is to reduce the complexities of needing 2 devices... one for 'play' and one for 'work'?
My phone is supposed to be good at calling, texting, and browsing the web on the go. That's a much different purpose than my laptop, which is meant for coding, etc. So doesn't it make sense for them to have different operating systems?
A different OS for a server than you run on a phone? You mean like the difference between Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 Server? Because it's a huge difference. Not even comparable. You're saying you can't code on a Windows 8 laptop? How am I running Visual Studio 2012 right now? In another window, I have an SSH session open to my VPS, editing some Golang files.
Here's the problem: Microsoft is basically giving you a free iPad bundled with the update to Windows 7. It doesn't hurt anything to have it there, but for a great number of people it really helps. Those people will likely never see the desktop, never care that it's there, and that's exactly what they want. For people like you and I, the only time we'll see Metro on our laptops is when we boot and when we hit the start button to search for a program via keyboard. The desktop is still there. It hasn't changed except for getting better. And yet people still seem to want to turn it into a negative with hyperbole, FUD, slippery slopes, and sometimes even outright lies. The world has not ended. It hasn't even changed. Window is Windows, your phone is a phone, your server is a server, and you still complain.
Not FUD. I agree with that statement the parent said. Why else would Microsoft think of including the Metro interface with the desktop. It doesn't make sense.
It's not the only example of critical core functionality being hidden and undiscoverable by default, but it's certainly the most glaring.
Not to repeat the same point again and again, but this could definitely be Microsofts' moment of truth. Basically, I feel MS is going all in, double or nothing or whatever other comparison you want to pull out.
The problem is, if it works, people will laud MS for their bold move. If it spectacularly blows up in their faces, everyone will spare no words in saying "They should've known. It was obvious. People were complaining way before they even launched."
I personally feel MS is at that point in time where services and hardware each are taking value away from the software and they feel desperate to throw anything at the wall. I'm also pretty sure that they don't really expect the Enterprise folks to use Metro so I wouldn't be really surprised if somewhere down the line, they release an "Enterprise/Professional" only service pack that allows you to boot to Desktop.
http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-st...
So the best quasi-hack I do is move the desktop tile to the top-most position. When the computer has just booted up, this allows me to simply press "Enter" and go to the desktop since I'm too lazy to use the mouse.
I don't believe it's to get users comfortable with Microsoft's interface on mobile offerings though that is clearly a side-effect.
I'm using various versions of Windows 8 on various machines: Release Preview at home and RTM at work. While most of my work is on the desktop, I have gradually reformed my start menu into groups of different concepts.
The different groups I'm using, in order, from left-to-right:
* The store, desktop and various super-commonly used tools such as remote desktop and web browsers.
* A few "neat to look at 'real quick" live tiles, including Finance and Weather.
* Development tools and communication programs, so Lync and Visual Studio and Fiddler.
* Misc SDET specific tools
* Another group with all of the repositories I work with
* Windows 8 apps that I've bought/downloaded from the store for various reasons
In all, I can see 41 app tiles without scrolling, both large and small, all of them are easily identifiable and relatively easy to reach. Since they are all large buttons (compared to your normal start menu shortcuts), I can swing my mouse over toward them, rather than dexterously follow a series of menus. It's different, but relatively easy. For my work, I would liken it to pressing [windows] + D to see the desktop, clicking on an icon and then having that different application load.
Honestly, I've grown to like it.
Window Key + "Su" + Enter -> Sublime Text 2 is open
vs.
Mouse over on the bottom left of the screen + Click + Wait for Metro interface to pan into view + Wheel over a horizontally scrolling screen of tiles scanning for a "Development Tools" group + Find Sublime Text 2 + Click -> Sublime Text 2 is Open
My common experience is to press the windows key and mouse around to click. While I proudly tout myself as a keyboard-primary user (and this is still the case. I use the keyboard as my sole tool in many more cases than some of my co-workers), I still happen to use the mouse from time to time and this is an example of it.
Also, when you're using an interface that has such accessible buttons, you tend to learn the general area of buttons, so it's not so much "scanning" as it is "oh yeah, that one repository is about here on the screen, let me swing my mouse over there and click it". The large buttons, again, help make that easier;* so, I don't quite have the same experience.* *
For my less-commonly used applications, I do follow the [windows key] enough text to load a program, usually the whole first word in its name because I type around 90-100 wpm and it's easier for me to type words than sub-sequences of letters [enter]; but it's rather surprising how much I've found myself actually adding apps to the start menu because I find clicking easier. Again, this is just from my personal experience, YMMV.
* I'm not a usability engineer, but I've read an article or two that talks about how difficult actions are for a user, and precision vs speed comes up.
edit:
* * As an example of this experience in progress, you probably know where commonly-clicked icons are on your desktop, if you happen to use your desktop to hold frequently edited documents or shortcuts. If someone re-arranged your icons, you'd be slower because they would no longer be in their previous, familiar locations.
>Mouse over on the bottom left of the screen + Click + Wait for Metro interface to pan into view
Window Key + "Su" + Click Sublime Text 2 -> Sublime Text 2 is open
EDIT: sukuriant has informed me that actually you can still just press Enter. So it's EXACTLY the same as before!
One thing I've learned while designing UIs is that if it takes a techy X amount of time to figure something out, it takes between X * 10 to X * 100 for a regular person, so you really want to aim for a super super intuitive interface; and they won't try forever.
In practice, I find seeing so much quite overwhelming. Is seeing 41 app tiles - many animated - actually a good thing? My ability to scan and make sense of the Start Screen is quite low. I find it grades on my senses as time passes and every visit to the Start Screen becomes less and less pleasant.
And regarding scrolling, on the desktop are we not used to vertical scrolling? I find it odd when my vertical scroll wheel action results in a horizontal scroll. It's harder to scan while scrolling.
Lastly, regarding have to "dexterously following a series of menus" using a mouse - is it really that hard? Did the MS research say users are unable to use a mouse effectively? I assumed the tiles are huge because a finger is much larger than a mouse pointer, and the Start Screen UI is designed as a touch-first experience.
That said, in my experience, I've only been confused/disoriented/had my senses degraded from looking at too much data when all the tiles are unorganized. If you have a single, giant group with 40 or 50 or who knows how many tiles, and they're all random, that would be, to me, a very confusing scenario. Indeed, if all the tiles I have on my start screen were all in the same group, I'd be confused; but, with groups, they're very easy to distinguish and differentiate. Again, it's like having many many icons on your desktop; or, having icons on your desktop grouped into clusters.
Scrolling. My start screen I try not to scroll. I personally feel that if you're scrolling on your start screen, you're taking too much space and you should tone down the number of quick-access apps you have -- you probably don't use all of them with regularity. That's my personal, private opinion. I am not on the team that worked on the Windows 8 user interface, so I have no idea. That said, I don't know why we're doing horizontal scrolling versus vertical scrolling and anything I said here would be pure speculation. In a column-friendly format, like the start screen, it's not that disorienting, though, because information naturally becomes columns versus rows. That could have been a design feature that came from the horizontal scrolling, I certainly don't know.
As far as the "Dexterously follow a series of menus" and the big buttons on the start menu are concerned, I have to put a disclaimer here: I only have as much knowledge on this as has been displayed on the internet from Microsoft, I wasn't a part of that team. BUT, I do have a grandfather; and I can anecdotal-ly remember him trying to maneuver his mouse and occasionally losing it in menus or miss-clicking because his hand would shake. As computer scientists and engineers and computer/modern-tech savvy people, our hands and fingers are more dexterous than others, I imagine, because we use them for these meticulous tasks all day long. For use cases like that, this new, large-button interface would probably be much easier. I have not had a chance to let him test the UI, so I can't say; and as my co-workers often remind me, my needs and wants are, often, not normal to computer users at large, so I could be very off.
I am about as a hardcore Desktop user as it gets, I have a custom build pc with 3 screens, custom mouse & keyboard shortcuts, steam, Photoshop & Dreamweaver user, etc...
I've been using Windows 8 since the Developer previews, and while some things have taken a while to get used to(like the hot corners), I'd have to say overall Windows 8 is a step up from Windows 7 in every way, I would hate to go back to 7. The Start Screen makes the Start Menu seem archaic.
Some pics of my setup:
http://i.minus.com/iqRDyV3Cdz4M3.jpg
http://i.minus.com/iUyzL0SkQgSD5.jpg
FWIW, metro apps are not fully featured but rather feature crippled. Take Chrome's metro version for example. It is just the forced-fullscreen version of the desktop one. You can still open insane amount of tabs.
But there is already one integrated into Windows 8, there is also sharing and searching integrated
Sharing
http://i.minus.com/ixWDWz6QqMRvG.jpg
Searching
http://i.minus.com/ieIlX6e9QyL16.jpg
shifting search to a different app/service with a click
http://i.minus.com/i8CxZ5i2wILEW.jpg
I'm not trying to become the Windows 8 advocate here but just showing how it has utility and value in many uses for me.
This isn't a technical issue per se, since it would be possible to produce these apps for the desktop.
Out of curiosity, is there anything the hot corners can do that you can't do using the Windows key launcher?
* Start Screen(lower left or Windows key)
* Recent/Running Metro apps(upper left or Win & Tab) http://i.minus.com/iD8rJOYWLWoHU.jpg
* Charms bar (upper or lower right or Win & C) http://i.minus.com/iKqyzIcITSAfB.jpg
Zero.
This is why I don't understand, say, the Verge's positive Windows 8 review. Sure, the desktop is still "usable." If you ignore Metro, it becomes an over-engineered full screen start menu.
And somehow, having the most massive upgrade to Windows be, at best, ignoreable on desktops and laptops doesn't make Windows 8 instantly a massive failure?
The Metro interface on a PC is designed to stem or reverse that trend. Why jump to a tablet when you can stay with the PC and use it like a tablet? Or better yet, when your tablet IS your PC, and your PC is a tablet. Metro is useful. Maybe not to me, maybe not to you, but we're a small subset of users. There are many who don't tolerate the desktop.
The security comes from the sandboxing model rather than the UI.
Back to your original point though, I would suggest trying it out for a week or so. I was hesitant as well, but so far it seems very natural and fluid to me. Even scrolling sideways to see more tiles just feels very natural.
Yes, this. I love that all are converging on a keyboard-centric UI. This is sort an unreported event, overshadowed by the Metro and Unity rucus, and probably not important to the mainstream, but as a power user I'm really glad to see it finally happening.
Because Microsoft is getting ready for the future, where non-PC computing devices will be far, far, far more important to most peoples' lives than PCs.
Windows 8 is the beginning of Microsoft's play to be on those devices. That means that design considerations to make it work nicely on "post-PC" devices take precedence over design considerations to make it work on PCs.
Windows 8 isn't a PC operating system with device-friendly concessions bolted on. It's a device operating system with PC concessions bolted on. The idea presumably is that the PC desktop piece of it will get smaller and less important as time goes on, then eventually become completely redundant and easy to drop altogether.
In other words, the plan is to do to the WIMP interface what they did with the CLI interface of MS-DOS. Its death will be slow, quiet, and (they hope) painless. But it is definitely going to die.
A big selling point of Windows has always been "use the same OS at home and at work". If MS are guessing that home users will largely go for WinRT devices over full on Windows 8 boxes they lose that advantage if there is too much fragmentation as you will have completely seperate app ecosystems for each.
It is also an OS for hybrid devices such as the Intel based Surface tablet.
Also? With the "metro" interface as part of the core OS, they're basically forcing manufacturers to start including touchscreens in laptops and to start selling touchscreen monitors. Which isn't exactly bad for manufacturers since it means people will want to upgrade.
Those are my opinions, at least. Personally, I agree that without a touchscreen, the new interface is annoying.
Just like people clamoured for 3D, right?
You can't force consumers to appreciate a feature by just insisting it's better. Touch screens won't move laptops just like they don't move all-in-one desktops right now.
Nobody wants to manipulate an upright screen with an outstretched arm. It's a completely unnatural thing to do, and the complete opposite of everything we've learned about the UX. Your hands need to resting when you're operating, or else all you're thinking about is when you'll be able to rest your hands.
Hence why some OEMs are offering convertible laptops and all-in-ones, which actually look pretty nice and should complement the new interface nicely.
[1] XPS 27 Touch All-in-one: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-one-27-2710-aio-t/pd
[2] XPS 12 Convertible: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-12-l221x/pd?~ck=mn&~ck=mn&#...
The metro UI is great for these tasks. It's easy to understand in the current tablet paradigm and those common uses across all users means Microsoft has actually simplified a large percentage of the use cases. Don't tell me you can look at a metro homescreen and not know what to do.
Now, for those of us on HN (I suspect the majority are programmers or sysadmins, or somebody else who wants/needs to get into the guts of the OS), they've got the old familiar WIN32 based OS behind the Metro UI.
Essentially, I suspect the challenge is that it will feel a bit like desktop stuff is virtualized, as I don't think you're running Metro & desktop apps side-by-side (but I don't know as I haven't used Win8 yet).
The important thing to realize is that Microsoft won't be around in a few years if they only catered to those people who are comfortable with the old desktop.
We're getting touchscreens on computers now, and Kinect interfaces I'm sure aren't far behind. The desktop will remain for the small percent of us that use it for work, but I wouldn't be surprised if I use metro much of the time. My concern is how am I going to feel jumping back and forth.
I want to hate on it but its actually pretty good.