Did MS win the battle?

[Tsumi]

Doesn't work that way... You have to like it or prove to others how your wrong opinion is right, which isn't going to happen. You're wrong. You don't like it? You're using it wrong.

Some people don't like Windows 8. Hell, a lot of people don't like it. Personal preference. There are things I don't like about Windows 8. I do use it and I enjoy using it (without a start menu replacement, too). I've seen some lifelong IT professionals that have gone from punch cards to CLI to Windows/Mac/Unix... Even they say that it's messed up. Obviously they don't mind change - they've gone through enough of it.

You can argue various points of Windows 8 for months (and people have on this forum - for months...). Truth is - no one is right. Tablets are great at a lot of things - portability is #1. Desktops can have massive horsepower that a tablet can't touch, and has tools to make it very precise for input. The two really don't mesh together very well (yet) for most thiùngs. Sure, I can use a tablet for a lot of things I can use my desktop for. But, some things REQUIRE a desktop and the preciseness of a 1600 DPI mouse on a high resolution, large monitor.

I don't like Breaking Bad, either. People tell me that it's the best show ever, and I should like it... Still, not a fan. Windows is the same way. Some people ARE NOT going to like it. They don't need to prove they don't like it with examples (then their opinion is called out as wrong). I don't care much for the organization for the Start Screen. Yes, I know there are usability studies and such that PROVE it's more efficient and all that jazz, but I still have some problems with it. I'm not using it wrong. I just don't care for it. I can use it, just not in the most efficient way.

There is a difference between pushing your opinion on someone else (as B00nie does) and suggesting ways to allow someone to have a better experience. Why is it so wrong for someone to make such suggestions, and why do people have to feel like it's invalidating their opinions? If it's invalidated, it usually means they made an assumption that wasn't true, and it deserves to be invalidated, like my cousin thinking the Metro interface was the only interface in Windows 8 and that there was no desktop mode.

I have never said it was wrong to dislike Windows 8. Most of us have never said it either.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I have never said it was wrong to dislike Windows 8. Most of us have never said it either.

There are a few people in various threads that say that others are using Metro wrong and it's not meant to be a UI, but a launch pad (among other things). And that if you are using the Metro app on a desktop, you're using the wrong app and using Windows wrong...

BTW: I love my Windows 8. I prefer it over 7. Lots of great stuff with it. My biggest issue is that the Modern UI (Metro) doesn't feel finished with it's integration with Windows. It's more than just a launch pad, just isn't showing it's full potential yet. I'm hoping the next iteration of Windows can complete it and make it much better.

I think with Windows, success or failure is dependent on the enterprise. And, with Windows 2000/XP/7 successes, Windows 8 may be a failure. It may be too soon between releases for the enterprise to pick it up, especially if MS goes for another release in 3ish years.

 

[Tsumi]

There are a few people in various threads that say that others are using Metro wrong and it's not meant to be a UI, but a launch pad (among other things). And that if you are using the Metro app on a desktop, you're using the wrong app and using Windows wrong...

BTW: I love my Windows 8. I prefer it over 7. Lots of great stuff with it. My biggest issue is that the Modern UI (Metro) doesn't feel finished with it's integration with Windows. It's more than just a launch pad, just isn't showing it's full potential yet. I'm hoping the next iteration of Windows can complete it and make it much better.

I think with Windows, success or failure is dependent on the enterprise. And, with Windows 2000/XP/7 successes, Windows 8 may be a failure. It may be too soon between releases for the enterprise to pick it up, especially if MS goes for another release in 3ish years.

But there's the other side to it:
Why do you intentionally make your experience worse so that you will dislike the OS? You're supposed to use it to get the best possible experience out of it. If you're using it to get the worse possible experience, then why even bother using it in the first place? If you're using it and trying to get the worse possible experience, then you probably have an agenda to paint it in the most negative light you can, and that's essentially propaganda, not just stating an opinion of why you dislike it.

 

[Ur_Mom]

But there's the other side to it:
Why do you intentionally make your experience worse so that you will dislike the OS? You're supposed to use it to get the best possible experience out of it. If you're using it to get the worse possible experience, then why even bother using it in the first place? If you're using it and trying to get the worse possible experience, then you probably have an agenda to paint it in the most negative light you can, and that's essentially propaganda, not just stating an opinion of why you dislike it.

It is negative for the way they use it. They aren't using it wrong, it's just not fitting their needs (not like OSX or Linux would, either... I laugh when people can't learn Win8, so they want to switch). Windows 8 is built for unification, but the PC & tablet experience are two separate things. I don't want my oven using the same dials and interface as my washing machine.

For some, Windows 8 does not fit their needs. And, it's not because they are using it wrong. It's just the wrong tool for the job. Windows 7 is the more efficient one for them. Negative? Could be taken that way (and can be explained that way).

Windows 8 was to make things easier, yet people are having a more difficult time with it. At least those that are having issues are a bit more vocal anyway. It has some issues that need to be fixed (I hope so, because I want to see Windows 9 eventually). It has a lot of good things with it, and I enjoy using it (I like the Start Screen and live tiles, I was spoiled with the Windows Phone 7). But, you can't deny that some people are having problems with it - be it the UI integration, missing start menu, things being moved or whatever.

I see a lot of legitimate complaints being shot down because they are negative 'propaganda'. I see a lot of Microsoft hate and Windows hate, too. A lot of it from people that have an uncle that used Windows 8 during developer preview and it sucked (not that extreme, but close). I also see a lot of 'tried it in RP and didn't like it. Forced myself to use it for two weeks, now I love it' type of posts. I think there are people that are taking ANY negativity of Windows 8 as the misinformed, negative person that just wants to spread the MS hate instead of a legitimate complaint or issue.

 

[MrCrispy]

Lets forget about the about start menu, charms bar etc. The problem on the desktop is Metro apps simply don't make sense, in the current implementation. You can't run multiple Metro apps, you can't run them in a window or on multiple monitors, the side docking mode is pretty much useless except for IM apps.

There are a few Metro apps I'd like to use - e.g. Netflix, PrimeTube. But I can't - e.g. I'm watching a Netflix movie and need to launch something else, there goes my movie as the whole screen is interrupted. Why can't I simply move it to 2nd monitor? Or run Skydrive in a window.

As far as I am aware none of this is a technical limitation. There are apps like RetroUI pro which let you run some apps in a window. This was done simply to preserve the 'Metro is a tablet UI' experience on all devices, which basically ignores and negates every advantage of the desktop. And this is the newest and greatest API from MS !! Crippled to a single form factor!

 

[Ur_Mom]

Lets forget about the about start menu, charms bar etc. The problem on the desktop is Metro apps simply don't make sense, in the current implementation. You can't run multiple Metro apps, you can't run them in a window or on multiple monitors, the side docking mode is pretty much useless except for IM apps.

You mean how we went back to Windows 1.01? Windows 2.0 introduced overlapping Windows. Now with Metro, you can't (sure, you can use the desktop). I hear that Metro apps aren't designed for desktop use... Why are they there? That's validation for the argument.

Desktop is for the overlapping and multitasking. Even if you find a great new Windows 8 app, you're stuck in full screen or pinned to the side of the monitor.

Not a big deal at all with a tablet, you're not doing 6 things at a time, really. But, on a desktop - that's a selling point. Multiple monitors, multiple windows open. View stocks, a movie, Twitter feed, and update a post on the forums. Introduce ONE Metro app - and it's either the all those apps or the single Metro app.

Hasn't caused me too much trouble, but it's starting to now that I'm developing Win8 apps. I am hoping they are patched via Windows Update or SP.

A little thing like that can leave a sour taste in your mouth for the whole OS, regardless of how much you like the rest of it. When it stops your work/play, it gets important fast.

 

[pelo]

Lets forget about the about start menu, charms bar etc. The problem on the desktop is Metro apps simply don't make sense, in the current implementation. You can't run multiple Metro apps, you can't run them in a window or on multiple monitors, the side docking mode is pretty much useless except for IM apps.

There are a few Metro apps I'd like to use - e.g. Netflix, PrimeTube. But I can't - e.g. I'm watching a Netflix movie and need to launch something else, there goes my movie as the whole screen is interrupted. Why can't I simply move it to 2nd monitor? Or run Skydrive in a window.

As far as I am aware none of this is a technical limitation. There are apps like RetroUI pro which let you run some apps in a window. This was done simply to preserve the 'Metro is a tablet UI' experience on all devices, which basically ignores and negates every advantage of the desktop. And this is the newest and greatest API from MS !! Crippled to a single form factor!

Some of these multitasking and multimonitor pitfalls are certainly due to tablets and Metro's focus on these products, but asking MS to support these things, along with various devices (people have been having issues getting printers and scanners and the like to work with Win8) would create an even larger OS. It's already quite porky as it is...

Keep in mind that this is Windows. Windows has a lot of intricacies; for example, registry files, which help manage hardware and software on a system. A lot of people hate the registry, many of them Windows die-hards. For Metro, getting rid of registry would be ideal, but because you need backwards compatibility in the desktop environment, it was forced to stick around (and as a result complicates matters a bit).

uring an audience Q & A on the Windows Weekly podcast on Friday, someone asked me about Windows 8 and the Registry, and why Microsoft didn't simply get rid of the Registry in this release. I explained that Microsoft couldn't get rid of the Registry because it was required by "legacy" Windows applications--i.e. every single Windows application written to date--and that perhaps the Registry could simply be de-emphasized over time as new, self-contained Metro-style apps appeared and replaced our previous applications. The theory here being that Metro-style apps were truly "self-contained," or application packages that exist in isolation from each other, both in memory while running and on the file system itself.

This would be a wonderful future world if it were true. Sadly, it is not.

Tipped off by Gavin R. via email, I watched the BUILD session Windows Runtime internals: understanding "Hello World" today, and if you're interested in this kind of thing I recommend you do so as well. In it, Microsoft's Matt Merry explains that, sadly, the Registry isn't just alive and well in Windows 8; it's still a core technology behind Windows 8 and its new, Metro-style apps.

Cue overly-loud sighing sounds.

http://winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/windows-8-registry-140910

It's an OS that, by its nature and its requirement of still providing the full "desktop experience," is going to take up a lot of space. They avoided as much as they could - and perhaps should have trimmed it a bit further - but it's still quite big.

This might sound like a digression, but I think it proves an important point here. MS had to trim fat wherever it could, and a lot of that came from drivers and in order to not bloat Metro, they had to cut down on some functionality that would essentially overlap with the desktop. Things that can bloat the OS and can cause difficulties for end users but had to remain in order to still serve the legacy crowd. I know that many people often bring up the failures of Win8 for the traditional PC space, but I think it's important to note that Microsoft had to make some compromises for the mobile crowd here as well. (You'll occasionally run into registry file errors if you do lots of installing and uninstalling of a wide variety of applications and hardware, some of which may overlap each other and bring up issues)

So they had to make sacrifices where they could within Metro and thus RT. For example: do you really need to have good multimonitor support in Metro? In fact, do you even need to add comprehensive multitasking support? What is its major target for this OS and GUI? Would it be a big deal to skip it?

In some respects, using Metro and asking for proper multimonitor support and multitasking is best described as "you're doing it wrong." It quite clearly wasn't meant as a desktop OS and UI, otherwise these simple things you're asking from it - multimonitor and multitasking on a single screen (or separate screens) - would actually work well. But they don't, and they don't because these same things are essentially useless on tablets and smartphones.

It is an OS of compromises, but it sort of had to be anyway. You really can't ask to retain full functionality of the desktop on a tablet/smartphone OS/UI and have it fit within typical smartphone/tablet storage. It would just become an even more bloated and confusing nightmare.

Of course, they could avoid these issues by offering different UIs with differing underlying functionality, but then that defeat the purpose of having a single unifying OS and UI that ties together all forms of computing, be it tablet, smartphone, or traditional desktop.

 

[MrCrispy]

It's not going to get fixed, because MS are apparently quite proud of the fact that their desktop OS can now run on ARM tablets, which is why every single demo of Win 8 was done on a tablet and they never bothered to show the desktop, or talk about multitasking.

I'm not even sure MS wants me to multitask when using Win 8 Metro. It's designed for one task at a time, which is fullscreen. They think docking to the side is some great invention which isn't possible with overlapping windows.

Which is why its best to think of Metro as a glorified app launcher and get out of its way as soon as possible. It's barely usable for any real work.

 

[pelo]

Which is why its best to think of Metro as a glorified app launcher and get out of its way as soon as possible. It's barely usable for any real work.

Would you expect to be doing any real work tapping your finger on a tablet?

Metro's main purpose wasn't the desktop nor productivity related tasks. There's a lot of truth to be people claiming that others are "doing it wrong." Because... well... they are.

 

[MrCrispy]

Some of these multitasking and multimonitor pitfalls are certainly due to tablets and Metro's focus on these products, but asking MS to support these things, along with various devices (people have been having issues getting printers and scanners and the like to work with Win8) would create an even larger OS. It's already quite porky as it is...

Keep in mind that this is Windows. Windows has a lot of intricacies; for example, registry files, which help manage hardware and software on a system. A lot of people hate the registry, many of them Windows die-hards. For Metro, getting rid of registry would be ideal, but because you need backwards compatibility in the desktop environment, it was forced to stick around (and as a result complicates matters a bit).



http://winsupersite.com/blog/supersite-blog-39/windows8/windows-8-registry-140910

It's an OS that, by its nature and its requirement of still providing the full "desktop experience," is going to take up a lot of space. They avoided as much as they could - and perhaps should have trimmed it a bit further - but it's still quite big.

This might sound like a digression, but I think it proves an important point here. MS had to trim fat wherever it could, and a lot of that came from drivers and in order to not bloat Metro, they had to cut down on some functionality that would essentially overlap with the desktop. Things that can bloat the OS and can cause difficulties for end users but had to remain in order to still serve the legacy crowd. I know that many people often bring up the failures of Win8 for the traditional PC space, but I think it's important to note that Microsoft had to make some compromises for the mobile crowd here as well. (You'll occasionally run into registry file errors if you do lots of installing and uninstalling of a wide variety of applications and hardware, some of which may overlap each other and bring up issues)

So they had to make sacrifices where they could within Metro and thus RT. For example: do you really need to have good multimonitor support in Metro? In fact, do you even need to add comprehensive multitasking support? What is its major target for this OS and GUI? Would it be a big deal to skip it?

In some respects, using Metro and asking for proper multimonitor support and multitasking is best described as "you're doing it wrong." It quite clearly wasn't meant as a desktop OS and UI, otherwise these simple things you're asking from it - multimonitor and multitasking on a single screen (or separate screens) - would actually work well. But they don't, and they don't because these same things are essentially useless on tablets and smartphones.

It is an OS of compromises, but it sort of had to be anyway. You really can't ask to retain full functionality of the desktop on a tablet/smartphone OS/UI and have it fit within typical smartphone/tablet storage. It would just become an even more bloated and confusing nightmare.

If that is the case, then why -

1. Is Metro part of my OS. Why are the default apps Metro versions. Why is Metro IE on my pc? These are obviously inferior to desktop apps, in features and usability.

2. Is MS pushing WinRT as the new API stack and the new Win32 replacement.

I think the reality is actually the opposite. WinRT is perfectly capable of running windowed, on multiple monitors etc. There was extra work done to make sure this was disabled. It would be trivial to remove these limitations on a desktop when touch is not present.

WinRT is actually a complete API, yet it is never going to get used for anything besides dumbed down phone apps with fat controls. MS lost a huge opportunity here to unify development.

I don't call this compromise. I call this a 'lets just bundle these 2 because we can't come up with a better solution and we need to sell this OS for tablets'.

 

[Tsumi]

It is negative for the way they use it. They aren't using it wrong, it's just not fitting their needs (not like OSX or Linux would, either... I laugh when people can't learn Win8, so they want to switch). Windows 8 is built for unification, but the PC & tablet experience are two separate things. I don't want my oven using the same dials and interface as my washing machine.

For some, Windows 8 does not fit their needs. And, it's not because they are using it wrong. It's just the wrong tool for the job. Windows 7 is the more efficient one for them. Negative? Could be taken that way (and can be explained that way).

Windows 8 was to make things easier, yet people are having a more difficult time with it. At least those that are having issues are a bit more vocal anyway. It has some issues that need to be fixed (I hope so, because I want to see Windows 9 eventually). It has a lot of good things with it, and I enjoy using it (I like the Start Screen and live tiles, I was spoiled with the Windows Phone 7). But, you can't deny that some people are having problems with it - be it the UI integration, missing start menu, things being moved or whatever.

I see a lot of legitimate complaints being shot down because they are negative 'propaganda'. I see a lot of Microsoft hate and Windows hate, too. A lot of it from people that have an uncle that used Windows 8 during developer preview and it sucked (not that extreme, but close). I also see a lot of 'tried it in RP and didn't like it. Forced myself to use it for two weeks, now I love it' type of posts. I think there are people that are taking ANY negativity of Windows 8 as the misinformed, negative person that just wants to spread the MS hate instead of a legitimate complaint or issue.

But the point of the hybrid OS is that you can choose to use the specific tools that cater to your needs. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it.

Also, I had the chance to play with a Windows 8 ultrabook with touchscreen this past weekend. It really is quite neat, and displays the hybrid nature of the OS well. Convert to laptop mode, switch to desktop and use as regular laptop. Traveling, switch to tablet mode and use Metro.

Again, I'll repeat this here: Why would you use the built-in Notepad for writing a complicated essay with graphs and pictures? You don't, you use Microsoft Word or any other word-processing program. It's the same thing with Metro apps. Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you're obligated to use them. The desktop is, for the most part, identical to Windows 7

 

[MrCrispy]

Would you expect to be doing any real work tapping your finger on a tablet?

Metro's main purpose wasn't the desktop nor productivity related tasks. There's a lot of truth to be people claiming that others are "doing it wrong." Because... well... they are.

Microsoft thinks Metro apps like the new People, Pictures, Music are good enough to make them defaults on the desktop. These are tasks most people do a lot, and these apps are anything but productive as you agree. If however you mean productive as in what people do to get paid, then again there's no reason to have this option on the desktop.

 

[MrCrispy]

But the point of the hybrid OS is that you can choose to use the specific tools that cater to your needs. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it.

Also, I had the chance to play with a Windows 8 ultrabook with touchscreen this past weekend. It really is quite neat, and displays the hybrid nature of the OS well. Convert to laptop mode, switch to desktop and use as regular laptop. Traveling, switch to tablet mode and use Metro.

Again, I'll repeat this here: Why would you use the built-in Notepad for writing a complicated essay with graphs and pictures? You don't, you use Microsoft Word or any other word-processing program. It's the same thing with Metro apps. Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you're obligated to use them. The desktop is, for the most part, identical to Windows 7

Except for the default apps, which according to MS's own metrics most people never change, and even if they wanted to Win 8 makes it much harder to do so, and apps are prevented from doing so.

I guess I'm talking about the wasted potential of Metro here, since you and pelo are both saying it exists only for tablets, while all the dev material from MS talks about WinRT as the new API for all kinds of apps, and they have killed every other modern dev language, like WPF/Silverlight.

Also, the Office team very much wanted to build a Metro version, and you can be sure it would have introduced new controls into Windows and made improvements, as every version of Office does. Sinofsky refused to allow access to them.

 

[pelo]

If that is the case, then why -

1. Is Metro part of my OS. Why are the default apps Metro versions. Why is Metro IE on my pc? These are obviously inferior to desktop apps, in features and usability.

2. Is MS pushing WinRT as the new API stack and the new Win32 replacement.

I think the reality is actually the opposite. WinRT is perfectly capable of running windowed, on multiple monitors etc. There was extra work done to make sure this was disabled. It would be trivial to remove these limitations on a desktop when touch is not present.

WinRT is actually a complete API, yet it is never going to get used for anything besides dumbed down phone apps with fat controls. MS lost a huge opportunity here to unify development.

I don't call this compromise. I call this a 'lets just bundle these 2 because we can't come up with a better solution and we need to sell this OS for tablets'.

The answer to 1 - "why are my default apps Metro apps" is the same as the answer 2, which is that MS is looking to push a new API stack and UI to replace Windows desktop. PC sales are faltering when compared to mobile, both tablets and smartphones, thus MS has to cater to the largest crowd of users rather than the now niche traditional PC space. People are bypassing laptop/desktop upgrades and going tablet. The enterprise/business crowd takes ages to upgrade anyway.

And Metro just doesn't work windowed. It would require a complete rewrite of the UI itself. The tile system would have to be thrown out the window, because it would need custom sizing and background space, essentially equivalent to an open window(s) and the desktop in the back. Tiles and Metro work on the concept that there is no background space and the current applications are set to full screen.

The difficulties you're having with Win8 and Metro aren't all MS's fault, a lot of it has to do with form factor and the current trends in computing. I agree with you that MS just didn't think this through and that perhaps they should have had separate OSes rather than a unified one with compromises on both ends with a truly unified OS sometime later, but that's not the direction they've taken.

Microsoft thinks Metro apps like the new People, Pictures, Music are good enough to make them defaults on the desktop. These are tasks most people do a lot, and these apps are anything but productive as you agree. If however you mean productive as in what people do to get paid, then again there's no reason to have this option on the desktop.

The option is there for people who use both a laptop/desktop and a smartphone/tablet. They have a familiar environment as well as their desktop.

I know it sounds like I'm defending Win8 here, but I'm not. I'm just giving you the reasons for why they made the decisions they did. I understand them, but that doesn't mean I agree with what they've done. Personally, I think Win8 is horrible

 

[hdawg06]

I'm loving 8, more than 7 even. Even keeping metro UI on the system doesn't really bother me. I have one computer that uses it then my other main pc doesn't. I prefer the start menu, but even without it the metro UI isn't bad. Once you get the hang of it it is pretty intuitive. Although I don't use the microsoft store for hardly anything. I can live with it even though I don't have a touchscreen laptop or tablet. The speed is insane. I love being able to boot up in 6seconds and have basically no loading or waiting for apps to run once I have logged in and onto the desktop.

 

[pelo]

I'm loving 8, more than 7 even. Even keeping metro UI on the system doesn't really bother me. I have one computer that uses it then my other main pc doesn't. I prefer the start menu, but even without it the metro UI isn't bad. Once you get the hang of it it is pretty intuitive. Although I don't use the microsoft store for hardly anything. I can live with it even though I don't have a touchscreen laptop or tablet. The speed is insane. I love being able to boot up in 6seconds and have basically no loading or waiting for apps to run once I have logged in and onto the desktop.

You've had that option with Win7 as well: Hibernate + SSD

There are things to like about Metro, but "look how fast it boots up!" isn't a reason to spend ~$80-$100.

 

[MrCrispy]

And Metro just doesn't work windowed. It would require a complete rewrite of the UI itself. The tile system would have to be thrown out the window, because it would need custom sizing and background space, essentially equivalent to an open window(s) and the desktop in the back. Tiles and Metro work on the concept that there is no background space and the current applications are set to full screen.

Let's not mix Tiles (specific to Start Screen) with Metro in general. There's nothing in WinRT which requires fullscreen, and Windows has had adaptive scaling (esp for XAML style apps) for a while now. It'd be trivial to scale a Metro app and adjust its layout dynamically.

I'm just giving you the reasons for why they made the decisions they did. I understand them, but that doesn't mean I agree with what they've done. Personally, I think Win8 is horrible

This is exactly how I feel. I know why the decisions were made, but I don't think there was any effort to arrive at a decent compromise, rather it was an effort to make Win 8 work on tablets at the expense of the desktop.

All that being said, I've been running Win 8 for a year now and have no intention of going back to 7

 

[Tsumi]

Except for the default apps, which according to MS's own metrics most people never change, and even if they wanted to Win 8 makes it much harder to do so, and apps are prevented from doing so.

I guess I'm talking about the wasted potential of Metro here, since you and pelo are both saying it exists only for tablets, while all the dev material from MS talks about WinRT as the new API for all kinds of apps, and they have killed every other modern dev language, like WPF/Silverlight.

Also, the Office team very much wanted to build a Metro version, and you can be sure it would have introduced new controls into Windows and made improvements, as every version of Office does. Sinofsky refused to allow access to them.

The default apps was one of the gripes I had with the OS. I never said it was only for tablets, I just said use what suits you best. And on a desktop, for the most part that is desktop programs. I found the e-mail and calendar apps Metro apps to be useful for their notification features, and that's it. The only other Metro apps I use are games.

And actually, there's an easy way to change the default apps. It's simply to remove the Metro apps, and it will automatically default to the desktop versions.

Also, the first time you open each file, the OS will ask you which program you want to use as the default program, although it only does so after it opens the Metro app, which is annoying.

 

[pelo]

Let's not mix Tiles (specific to Start Screen) with Metro in general. There's nothing in WinRT which requires fullscreen, and Windows has had adaptive scaling (esp for XAML style apps) for a while now. It'd be trivial to scale a Metro app and adjust its layout dynamically.

True multitasking support would require a custom resizing of active windows. That's not going to happen anytime soon. Because not all software is content with an equal amount of space, it would require a user controlled resizing.

This is exactly how I feel. I know why the decisions were made, but I don't think there was any effort to arrive at a decent compromise, rather it was an effort to make Win 8 work on tablets at the expense of the desktop.

All that being said, I've been running Win 8 for a year now and have no intention of going back to 7

Well, it doesn't work perfectly for tablets either. Some of the more advanced functionality only works in desktop mode. For instance, to get to the advanced options in IE you'd have to launch IE desktop and not IE Metro. Then there's the useless registry files for Metro, large install

So it's not all rainbows and unicorn farts for tablet users either. To compare, Android on the Nexus 7 takes about ~2.5GB?

 

[MrCrispy]

True multitasking support would require a custom resizing of active windows. That's not going to happen anytime soon. Because not all software is content with an equal amount of space, it would require a user controlled resizing.





Well, it doesn't work perfectly for tablets either. Some of the more advanced functionality only works in desktop mode. For instance, to get to the advanced options in IE you'd have to launch IE desktop and not IE Metro. Then there's the useless registry files for Metro, large install

So it's not all rainbows and unicorn farts for tablet users either. To compare, Android on the Nexus 7 takes about ~2.5GB?

I wonder how much of that is WoA (for the desktop) and how much is really needed for WinRT. Although of course Office needs the desktop portion, and Office is a big reason to get Windows RT.

 

[~a75]

ms really forced metro on us

 

[pelo]

I wonder how much of that is WoA (for the desktop) and how much is really needed for WinRT. Although of course Office needs the desktop portion, and Office is a big reason to get Windows RT.

That's an x86 Atom tablet.

Here's MS's own Surface RT on ARM

So you've still only got half on 32GB. That's before any applications are installed.

This shouldn't surprise anybody, though. When was the last time MS was frugal with their software's resource consumption? Do they know what frugal means?

 

[Ur_Mom]

But the point of the hybrid OS is that you can choose to use the specific tools that cater to your needs. Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it.

Windows 8 has the picture viewer and the standard Windows Legacy picture viewer. Same with Media Player and the new Metro player. What's default for these applications? Metro. Don't use it? Microsoft is nudging you to do so. I changed it so it's not a problem.

It's nothing major, of course, just those little annoyances. But, the 'just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it' doesn't work. Start your Windows 8 PC. What's the first thing you see after log in? So, how do I not use it? [This is a legit and valid thing, but I have no problems with using the new Start Screen - I like it and can use it very well. I prefer to use it, myself].

If Metro was forced on us, so was the Start Menu 17 years ago. So was the X to close the Window. The whole OS is forced on you, for the most part (without tweaks).

 

[pelo]

Microsoft's new Windows 8 operating systme is only running on 45 out of every 10,000 PCs, according to new figures, putting adoption far below the initial Windows 7 uptake.
Data from the Net Applications company showed that, at the end of October, 0.45 per cent of total PCs were running Microsoft's latest OS.
That's compared to previous figures from the same company that showed 2.33 per cent of users had taken on Windows 7 following its launch at the end of October 2009.

http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...s-8-adoption-5x-slower-than-windows-7-1109418

November numbers aren't in yet so they may look a little different, but Win8 certainly didn't come out with a bang. It was mostly a whimper. A poof

 

[yossarian]

Going back to the original question, Win8 will be a success if it takes marketshare from Android and Apple tablets and phones. The impact to desktops, MS didn't care about. They arguably made the desktop more difficult, but I think they just felt they could get away with it because they own the desktop market. Besides, I wonder if upgrade sales really matter anyway? Probably most people just upgrade their computer and keep whatever OS is on it when they buy it, and right now that's Win8.

By the way, I upgraded my Droid Razr from Android 2 to 4 for free 6 months after I bought it. Think MS will ever let people upgrade to it's next OS version for free?

 

[wonderfield]

Windows 7 was launched in July. Windows 8 was launched in October. Going by the end-of-October install base figures doesn't really mean much.

 

[wonderfield]

There are a few people in various threads that say that others are using Metro wrong and it's not meant to be a UI, but a launch pad (among other things). And that if you are using the Metro app on a desktop, you're using the wrong app and using Windows wrong...

Someone in another thread astutely compared this behavior to Steve Jobs' famed "you're holding it wrong" comment. The idea being that you won't have a good experience with Windows 8 unless you use it right, just as you won't have a good experience with an iPhone unless you hold it right.

Whoever it was who originally made that comparison deserves a cookie.

 

[pelo]

Windows 7 was launched in July. Windows 8 was launched in October. Going by the end-of-October install base figures doesn't really mean much.

Win7 launched in October of 2009.

Windows 7 is an operating system produced by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, netbooks, tablet PCs, and media center PCs;[5] Windows 7 was released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009,[6] and reached general retail availability worldwide on October 22, 2009

 

[wonderfield]

Ah. My mistake.

 

[heatlesssun]

http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...s-8-adoption-5x-slower-than-windows-7-1109418

November numbers aren't in yet so they may look a little different, but Win8 certainly didn't come out with a bang. It was mostly a whimper. A poof

One thing this article doesn't account for is the difference in the number of PCs in 2009 versus 2012, which is a considerable number. Plus this is a very short period of time October 26 to 31 which is only half of the number of days in October that Windows 7 was available in 2009.

I don't think anyone was expecting Windows 8 to match Windows 7 numbers at this point, especially when there's so little new hardware out there, most Windows 8 machines are just warmed over Windows 7 devices at this point.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well, it doesn't work perfectly for tablets either. Some of the more advanced functionality only works in desktop mode. For instance, to get to the advanced options in IE you'd have to launch IE desktop and not IE Metro. Then there's the useless registry files for Metro, large install

I have Office 2013 Pro, Visio 2013 Pro, VLC, around 4GB in data and about 50 Metro apps installed on my 500T and have around 14 GB free. Pop in a 64 microSD and double the storage if needed.

I find it interesting how many people are focused on things like top line performance and storage space on a platform that represents the thinnest and lightest PCs ever made that are fanless with virtually no heat that weigh about a pound and a half and get 10 hours of battery life.

 

[pelo]

One thing this article doesn't account for is the difference in the number of PCs in 2009 versus 2012, which is a considerable number. Plus this is a very short period of time October 26 to 31 which is only half of the number of days in October that Windows 7 was available in 2009.

There are more PCs around today than there were in 2009, so I'm not sure if you want to open that can of worms =P

I don't think anyone was expecting Windows 8 to match Windows 7 numbers at this point, especially when there's so little new hardware out there, most Windows 8 machines are just warmed over Windows 7 devices at this point.

I agree. But Microsoft also expected better sales figures and adoption rates, as well as more OEMs to be on board and behind them with a whole host of products and devices. There's a lot of talk on many forums and tech sites regarding where the blame lies when it comes to the ' well below expectations' sales figures. Some are claiming it's a Microsoft issue because they haven't provided enough incentive for users to upgrade, are directly competing with their own OEMs, and the pricing is too high. The other side is claiming that it's an OEM issue and a lack of vision on account of making desirable products.

Personally, I think MS deserves a bit more blame here. It's ultimately up to them to create an OS that appeals to everyone; unless I'm mistaken that was the point of Win8 in the first place. The lack of excitement around the OS and the "meh" reviews, particularly for the traditional PC space, was something MS was willing to cope with if it meant they had a more suitable tablet/smartphone OS. Well, their biggest OEMs aren't tablet and smartphone makers but rather mostly focused around the laptop and desktop. Do you think HP is going to create a tablet after what happened with the TouchPad?

I think whichever side you fall on, whether blame the OEMs or Microsoft, in the end it's the sales figures that tell the story and the consumer doesn't care about such matters.

I have Office 2013 Pro, Visio 2013 Pro, VLC, around 4GB in data and about 50 Metro apps installed on my 500T and have around 14 GB free. Pop in a 64 microSD and double the storage if needed.

I find it interesting how many people are focused on things like top line performance and storage space on a platform that represents the thinnest and lightest PCs ever made that are fanless with virtually no heat that weigh about a pound and a half and get 10 hours of battery life.

You can't sell it as a laptop replacement and then bitch and moan about how people are complaining that it's not a suitable laptop replacement.

I find it funny that you claim it'll do Photoshop yet it only has 16GB of space. Ever actually done photoshop work? I'll give you a hint as to what you need: lots and lots of free bytes. Giga, even. And apparently if you want to store it on a network and not on the convertible itself, the Clover Trail SoC can't even transfer large files over WiFi without choking up.

Heatless, they screwed up. But it wasn't just Microsoft. The OEMs dropped the ball and so did Intel. Don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[yossarian]

I don't think anyone was expecting Windows 8 to match Windows 7 numbers at this point, especially when there's so little new hardware out there, most Windows 8 machines are just warmed over Windows 7 devices at this point.

But weren't Windows 7 machines just warmed over Vista/XP devices?

PC sales are still growing each year, just not at a rate as fast as tablets.

 

[wonderfield]

If the Surface RT is a PC, then Android tablets are also PCs. You could certainly formulate a sensible definition to exclude the iPad as a PC, but I don't believe you could do similarly with Android in any reasonable, sensible way.

 

[shad3dpixel]

Windows 8 is a disappointment, anybody who values productivity and performance on their computer shouldn't use it.

 

[heatlesssun]

There are more PCs around today than there were in 2009, so I'm not sure if you want to open that can of worms =P

Not sure what you mean by this. Al

I agree. But Microsoft also expected better sales figures and adoption rates, as well as more OEMs to be on board and behind them with a whole host of products and devices. There's a lot of talk on many forums and tech sites regarding where the blame lies when it comes to the ' well below expectations' sales figures. Some are claiming it's a Microsoft issue because they haven't provided enough incentive for users to upgrade, are directly competing with their own OEMs, and the pricing is too high. The other side is claiming that it's an OEM issue and a lack of vision on account of making desirable products.

Thurrott pointed out today that people are making a lot more out of the insider info he's been passing along than he meant or could even be inferred by what he said: http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/dialing-back-crazy-windows-8

Do you think HP is going to create a tablet after what happened with the TouchPad?

Doesn't HP have two Windows 8 tablet hybrid devices on the way.

You can't sell it as a laptop replacement and then bitch and moan about how people are complaining that it's not a suitable laptop replacement.

And the people complaining about it not being a laptop replacement are the types that generally want more powerful hardware. A Clover Trail device is all the PC that a lot of average people will ever need.

I find it funny that you claim it'll do Photoshop yet it only has 16GB of space. Ever actually done photoshop work? I'll give you a hint as to what you need: lots and lots of free bytes. Giga, even. And apparently if you want to store it on a network and not on the convertible itself, the Clover Trail SoC can't even transfer large files over WiFi without choking up.

Huh? What has 16GB of free space, I thought the Ativ had 30GB according your chart, I actually don't remember what I had to begin with. I never said that the Ativ 500 was an adequate device for Photophop, only that it does work on lighter stuff and there's a number of people that have tested it. I've said that I'm not a digital artist for I don't claim any deep knowledge of the subject. But again you keep talking about stuff that you have never used and I really don't know what point you're trying to make about this device.

Heatless, they screwed up. But it wasn't just Microsoft. The OEMs dropped the ball and so did Intel. Don't say I didn't warn you...

With all of the stuff that you're pointing out about something that you've never used that often tends to be iffy, well...

 

[heatlesssun]

But weren't Windows 7 machines just warmed over Vista/XP devices?

PC sales are still growing each year, just not at a rate as fast as tablets.

7 wasn't targeted as a truly touch capable OS either. Windows 8 is really the first version of Windows that is designed to be used with hardware that's not currently widespread in the PC market.

 

[Ur_Mom]

And the people complaining about it not being a laptop replacement are the types that generally want more powerful hardware. A Clover Trail device is all the PC that a lot of average people will ever need.

This is true. Especially with a tablet/laptop. Unless you're looking for a top of the line gaming laptop, the Clover Trail will be sufficient. You don't go buy a mini Cooper looking for Ferrari performance. You buy what you need. I can almost guarantee someone buying a 13" laptop/tablet/convertible isn't too concerned with the difference between a CT and an i7. Developers? They will usually have something a bit more beefy. Same with gamers.

 

[Tsumi]

But weren't Windows 7 machines just warmed over Vista/XP devices?

PC sales are still growing each year, just not at a rate as fast as tablets.

I wouldn't be too sure about this either. People are going longer between PC upgrades. There's simply no need to upgrade every 2 years nowadays, a PC can last 5+ years without getting slow for most tasks.

 

[yossarian]

7 wasn't targeted as a truly touch capable OS either. Windows 8 is really the first version of Windows that is designed to be used with hardware that's not currently widespread in the PC market.

I'm not getting your point. You said Win8 sales don't match Win7 because there's little new hardware out there. But Win7 was successful even as an upgraded Vista on the same hardware that was available for Vista and even XP. Are you now saying Win8 isn't going well because lack of touch devices? Because that's the point a lot have been making all along, that Win8 is not appealing to many owners of non-touch devices, and therefore is reducing sales.