Hacker News Reader

Comment by muuh-gnu | Hacker News Reader

> why include metro in the PC version?

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.

View on HN

Replying to the your first point, 'getting familiar with the mobile interface':

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.

This is great to hear, thanks. I've been using launchers exclusively on Linux the past few years and love not having to use the mouse anymore for that. Glad to see this isn't just a trend in the Linux world, but that Windows is now being built around the concept as well.

Search in Start Menu was there since Windows Vista. After getting accustomed to that, the Start Menu of XP looked too awful!

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.

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.

> 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. FUD.

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.

>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.

>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.

Because Microsoft wasn't trying to build a Tablet OS. They were trying to build a Desktop and Tablet OS, and a new interface that should (at least theoretically) work on both was to come with it.

Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?

A separate interface that's optimized for touch based devices makes sense. But that doesn't explain why for one, did they have to use the tablet-optimized interface for the default, user friendly desktop mode, and secondly, why did they force the traditional desktop users to use a dumbed-down comprised desktop interface without a start menu?

The new one is user-friendly, it's just different from the old one. Also, the lack of "start menu" doesn't matter so much if you use search to find apps. And the start screen is great for info at a glance.

> There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible.

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-...

> 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.

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.

If you don't want downvotes then don't just reply by quoting the parent and writing "FUD".

I think it's pretty obvious that FUD is what the parent was saying. Objectively, you really don't need more than what the parent provided to understand this.

If you reply with one-word dismissals, you are going to get ignored (which is really what a downvote means).

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.

They're attempting to bridge the gap between a tablet and PC using 1 operating system. If played right, it could be a huge advantage to people really only needing one device for everything. You can see this in the new OEM devices coming out (ASUS Transformers, Samsung, etc..)

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'?

Because sometimes you want different operating systems for different purposes? Presumably you don't want a phone OS running on your website servers, and you don't want a server-optimized version of linux running on your phone.

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?

I see your point, but I would argue that a tablet and PC have more common use cases and would benefit from using the same OS.

There are different operating systems, or at least different use cases built into the same operating system. Sweet jesus, I have to abandon the Internet for the next few years until people realize the world didn't end with Windows 8. It's frustrating to see such uninformed words being written and accepted as fact by such otherwise incredibly intelligent people.

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.

Let me quote a comment I left on another article. I'm getting tired of having to post the same thing over and over while everyone else gets away with just saying "Microsoft is being evil again!" without any strong argument to back it up. The thing that we in the tech industry seem hesitant to try to understand is that the desktop is a giant roadblock to average desktop users. That's why the iPad is outselling PCs.

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.

I still don't get the obsession with hidden controls. Why couldn't they have kept the start button, even with the current Windows 8 functionality. Instead you must guess that a hidden button appears if you move the cursor to one of two corners of the screen, and are careful to not move too far away from the screen edge as you move to click it.

It's not the only example of critical core functionality being hidden and undiscoverable by default, but it's certainly the most glaring.

The rule is that apps should have 100% of the screen devoted to them, and not persistent system chrome. It's a promise they want to be able to make to developers. The app gets every pixel, not the system.

You don't have to move to click the little start menu preview, you don't even have to wait for the preview to show up, you just bring your mouse to the corner and click. There's no aiming, just "throw mouse to corner and click".

Regarding point #1: I think that's the only thing going on for Microsoft. For instance, I have Windows 8 on a laptop. After using that for a while, my mom atleast appeared quite comfortable using a Windows phone at the mall.

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.

Regarding your last comment about booting to Desktop: you can already access the full desktop and I'm guessing there's a preference to say "just boot me to the desktop".

There is no such preference, no such registry setting or group policy. You have to use an executable that's set to run on startup that will show the desktop. Or you can hack/replace the shell.

http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-st...

Well yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Right now, there's no actual way to directly to boot there.

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.

In regard to #1, Microsoft wants to leverage their desktop monopoly to force users into the Metro ecosystem thus forcing developers to build Metro apps.

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 agree with points #1 and #2 but disagree with point #3. But that's not interesting, what's interesting is that it might actually work. Or at least, it seems very plausible to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com