If Gaming on Windows 8 is Bad Will You Stick With Windows 7?

[dr.stevil]

You are only looking at one aspect of metro apps, but first I want to say that you should be able to eventually monitor those metrics in live tiles, and with notifications, without full screening them, once those apps are developed (remember Windows 8 is not GA yet.) The purpose of metro apps is not to add a class of apps that can only be run full screen with no other goals, metro apps are vetted, strictly sandboxed, have strict power requirements (can't use CPU while not being used, minimum resource usage for notification features), are in an app store that is safe for any user, and so on. While I suppose you could want a desktop app to have these or a subset of these features and still be resizable, and so on, it mostly makes sense for simple applications with simple uses (compared to a high end desktop app, like say visual studio). It allows usage of a class of apps that are low maintenance and simple to use, that work on desktop and tablets. It's not a replacement for things that are not compatible with those concepts, it's an addition so (on the desktop at least) people can have the benefits of tablets while still having access to desktop applications and environment. To use a cliché, it's like making your computer a transformer, that transforms from a desktop to a tablet, and back, so you can get the benefits of a tablet while still having a desktop.

I get that and all, but since the start screen/metro interface is the 'main hub' of the PC... I just can't, for the life of me, understand why there's a desktop at all. Can't it just be a seamless experience? So, for instance, have a legacy window open over the top of the start screen, where you can interact with live tiles and such, instead of forcing them into the desktop environment? I think that's where a lot of the dislike for the UI comes from. It's like windows has multiple personalities and don't/won't play nice with each other.


I realize what the requirements are for metro apps and what they're trying to accomplish. But it seems really short sighted to isolate them from the other half of the system and vice versa

As a desktop user of windows 8, that only really uses legacy applications, what's the advantage for me to seek out and use metro apps/games/etc over their legacy counterparts? I can't really think of a single instance where I'd want to.

 

[devil22]

I get that and all, but since the start screen/metro interface is the 'main hub' of the PC... I just can't, for the life of me, understand why there's a desktop at all. Can't it just be a seamless experience? So, for instance, have a legacy window open over the top of the start screen, where you can interact with live tiles and such, instead of forcing them into the desktop environment? I think that's where a lot of the dislike for the UI comes from. It's like windows has multiple personalities and don't/won't play nice with each other.


I realize what the requirements are for metro apps and what they're trying to accomplish. But it seems really short sighted to isolate them from the other half of the system and vice versa

All I can say, is that most users probably want the desktop because they want or need to interact with a place to store non-application files, have a task bar that shows running programs, etc. in the old way. I think it's better this way, and really should make everyone happy. Desktop fans (for lack of a better word) can almost entirely use the system the way they have in the past, and people who desire the metro experience can use it as the main interface, and you can easily switch back and forth if you're versatile. Also, switching between two very different things might be multiple personalities in a human, but for a computer I think it just makes it versatile. You're already switching a lot anyway, when running full screen apps like a 3D game, or watching a movie, and all kinds of other usages.

As a desktop user of windows 8, that only really uses legacy applications, what's the advantage for me to seek out and use metro apps/games/etc over their legacy counterparts?

It's been stated many times, you can get information like email notifications, calendar events, news, really a ton of things. Just click the metro hot spot, and instantly see all of it, they use minimum system resources (much lower than standard desktop apps they replaced), they are very secure, being strictly sandboxed, so I mean, it's more a question of how much does it add, versus does it add or take away..I find they add a considerable amount, but no they don't rock my world and probably won't do that for anyone else either who is mainly a desktop user.

 

[dr.stevil]

All I can say, is that most users probably want the desktop because they want or need to interact with a place to store non-application files, have a task bar that shows running programs, etc. in the old way. I think it's better this way, and really should make everyone happy. Desktop fans (for lack of a better word) can almost entirely use the system the way they have in the past, and people who desire the metro experience can use it as the main interface, and you can easily switch back and forth if you're versatile. Also, switching between two very different things might be multiple personalities in a human, but for a computer I think it just makes it versatile.

I don't know if I'd call it versatile. Honestly, it feels a lot like you're using windows 8 and then windows 7 inside a virtual machine, only without the start menu. It's obviously not the case, but that's really what it feels like. I still maintain that MS, for the users we're talking about (power users and geeks/techs) should of given the option to turn metro off completely and boot to the desktop (start menu and all). If I ever go to windows 8, the only time I'd likely ever be using metro is to launch the desktop or legacy apps

It's been stated many times, you can get information like email notifications, calendar events, news, really a ton of things. Just click the metro hot spot, and instantly see all of it, they use minimum system resources (much lower than standard desktop apps they replaced), they are very secure, being strictly sandboxed, so I mean, it's more a question of how much does it add, versus does it add or take away..I find they add a considerable amount, but no they don't rock my world and probably won't do that for anyone else either who is mainly a desktop user.

But you could get that with desktop apps too (as well as widgets/gadgets) . The one main difference is that it's specifically approved by MS. I really don't see any other compelling reason to use them though (or want them for the eyecandy maybe?)

 

[devil22]

I don't know if I'd call it versatile. Honestly, it feels a lot like you're using windows 8 and then windows 7 inside a virtual machine, only without the start menu. It's obviously not the case, but that's really what it feels like. I still maintain that MS, for the users we're talking about (power users and geeks/techs) should of given the option to turn metro off completely and boot to the desktop (start menu and all). If I ever go to windows 8, the only time I'd likely ever be using metro is to launch the desktop or legacy apps

What's wrong with a VM? If it's like a VM, it's a VM that's full screen and full speed (where as most VMs have limited native hardware access and thus reduced speed.) My opinion is that, you'd have to be fairly unreasonable to want to turn metro off, if you want the start menu because you just want to launch apps, well metro does that more efficiently (hate to keep repeating the 2-clicks vs. 4-clicks thing, but it applies), just unpin the metro apps. What do you gain beyond increasing clicks, which isn't even a gain unless you want the exercise? I mean, people can argue all day, but if they're like the (considerable in quantity) arguments I've already seen, I'm not going to change that opinion.

But you could get that with desktop apps too (as well as widgets/gadgets) . The one main difference is that it's specifically approved by MS. I really don't see any other compelling reason to use them though (or want them for the eyecandy maybe?)

How do you get a bunch of apps that are sandboxed from the system, user account, and each other, and also use no system resources, on the desktop? Also I do find that the metro apps are visually very pleasant, I'm actually an admirer of simplicity (to the degree that it's still functional), kind of like a UI version of Occam's Razor or Einstein's famous "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

 

[dnottis]

to me it feels like Windows 7 with metro bolted on and force fed. It doesn't feel like Win8 with 7 as a VM.

 

[dr.stevil]

What's wrong with a VM? If it's like a VM, it's a VM that's full screen and full speed (where as most VMs have limited native hardware access and thus reduced speed.) My opinion is that, you'd have to be fairly unreasonable to want to turn metro off, if you want the start menu because you just want to launch apps, well metro does that more efficiently (hate to keep repeating the 2-clicks vs. 4-clicks thing, but it applies), just unpin the metro apps. What do you gain beyond increasing clicks, which isn't even a gain unless you want the exercise? I mean, people can argue all day, but if they're like the (considerable in quantity) arguments I've already seen, I'm not going to change that opinion.

well, if someone wants to ONLY use the desktop/legacy apps, whats the point of having to back out of the desktop, to the start screen, to work/launch apps/etc? It's a little disjointed... which sort of brings me back to my original point of why even have the desktop at all? It's only half functional from classic windows versions at least, so why not just go all in and run legacy applications ontop of the metro UI? or allow users to turn on the classic start menu and work entirely from the desktop?

How do you get a bunch of apps that are sandboxed from the system, user account, and each other, and also use no system resources, on the desktop? Also I do find that the metro apps are visually very pleasant, I'm actually an admirer of simplicity (to the degree that it's still functional), kind of like a UI version of Occam's Razor or Einstein's famous "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."

sandboxie?

system resources, I can understand on a mobile device, but again... seems rather pointless on a desktop with modern hardware.

Let me say that I have NO problems with metro apps and the fact that they're offering them. It's their complete seperation from the classic desktop and rest of the system (forced fullscreen) that leaves me scratching my head. If I'm using photoshop or a metro app and want to check out what one of the live tiles are doing (check the weather, stocks, RSS feed, etc), I have to jump back to the start screen (likewise with a metro app).

I really hope that they work on this for SP1 because it honestly doesn't seem very well thought out.

I'm no Microsoft hater either... I've been using their products since the mid-80's, but windows 8 just feels like a cluster*ck

 

[devil22]

well, if someone wants to ONLY use the desktop/legacy apps, whats the point of having to back out of the desktop, to the start screen, to work/launch apps/etc? It's a little disjointed... which sort of brings me back to my original point of why even have the desktop at all? It's only half functional from classic windows versions at least, so why not just go all in and run legacy applications ontop of the metro UI? or allow users to turn on the classic start menu and work entirely from the desktop?

When you say "whats the point of having to back out of the desktop, to the start screen, to work/launch apps/etc?" what you're talking about is an identical experience to opening the start menu and launching a program. You press the start button/start screen hot spot, then you click the application (or for the start menu, click through all programs and folders then the application), then you're staring at the application on your desktop. The transition has no actual effect on anything in Windows 8, it does not increase the user work to even the slightest degree (quite the opposite actually.)

As I've said, users want the desktop to work with files, and the task bar to monitor running desktop applications in the traditional way. Maybe that will change, and MS will eliminate it, at this point I think it makes more sense to keep it. Either to leave it as an option for people who prefer it, or ease people into a transition to a hypothetical desktop-less Windows.

sandboxie?

Not many people are going to know enough to download and run that. And those are the people that need it the most.

system resources, I can understand on a mobile device, but again... seems rather pointless on a desktop with modern hardware.

For one or two well behaved background apps, maybe. A bunch of them, or a badly coded one or two, and well, metro apps would be a big improvement. Remember regular users don't know how to judge this, they just know their system is "slow" and don't really understand fine arguments about running things like DPC Latency Checker and disabling the apps one by one to see which is causing lag that makes their videos stutter, etc.

Let me say that I have NO problems with metro apps and the fact that they're offering them. It's their complete seperation from the classic desktop and rest of the system (forced fullscreen) that leaves me scratching my head. If I'm using photoshop or a metro app and want to check out what one of the live tiles are doing (check the weather, stocks, RSS feed, etc), I have to jump back to the start screen (likewise with a metro app).

Sure, you have to jump back to the start screen, and what do you do with a widget or gadget, minimize everything, then re-maximize. Best case, it's no different from a user work perspective, with other benefits already mentioned. Actually one benefit I can think of, say you have a bunch of apps open and want to check your info gadgets, etc. You hit the minimize all button, but then things like video players on a 2nd monitor minimize as well, where as just opening the metro start screen keeps 2nd monitor apps up, a small benefit that I however appreciate.

I really hope that they work on this for SP1 because it honestly doesn't seem very well thought out.

I'm no Microsoft hater either... I've been using their products since the mid-80's, but windows 8 just feels like a cluster*ck

I wouldn't expect any SP to change anything, except the usual exception, XP SP2, Service Packs strictly fix bugs. I see the metro addition as fine, I think you are making it seem more of a burden than it is, making arguments like "jump back to the start screen to see live tiles" without considering that it requires equal work to do that with desktop gadget type apps, and so on. I enjoy discussing Windows 8, and appreciate your civil manner, so don't get me wrong..

 

[dnottis]

making arguments like "jump back to the start screen to see live tiles" without considering that it requires equal work to do that with desktop gadget type apps, and so on.

trying to keep this civil with you....

If I'm on the desktop in Win7 with a gadget running showing the weather I can open IE and size the window so I can still see the weather.

If in Windows 8 I'm using the metro version of IE, in order to see the live tile I have to "jump back to the start screen". I cannot surf in Metro IE while viewing the weather.

How do you see that as "equal work"?

 

[dr.stevil]

Sure, you have to jump back to the start screen, and what do you do with a widget or gadget, minimize everything, then re-maximize. Best case, it's no different from a user work perspective, with other benefits already mentioned...

Only if said user is using an Application in full screen and on a single monitor though.

in 7, I like to have gadgets open on my left screen, and game/work on the right screen. So everything is at a quick glance. Even more benficial (and one of the features I loved about windows 7) was the ability to pin an app to the side/top/bottom of the screen by dragging it there. So I could have FF, Thunderbird and Steam all open (for example), while still able to monitor my network gadget and system resource gadget on the other half of the second screen.

You can still do this is you're only using legacy apps (assuming you can even use gadgets with windows 8, haven't tried since MS announced their death). So why bother with metro apps at all?

Honestly, it just seems like, with a few minor exceptions, most users are going to pick one or the other. The power users and people that work on windows PC's are going to stick with the desktop and the light/casual users are going to stick with metro. I really can't see many people jumping back and forth.

I could be wrong though

edit: and this is what I mean about it not being a seamless experience. It would be really cool, IMO, to have a legacy app (lets say a game) running ontop of metro in a window, and position it so a live tile(s) was feeding me the information that I was looking for in a better layout than traditional gadgets. This just isnt possible, but should be. It's things like that, that make Windows 8 feel half baked.

 

[devil22]

trying to keep this civil with you....

If I'm on the desktop in Win7 with a gadget running showing the weather I can open IE and size the window so I can still see the weather.

If in Windows 8 I'm using the metro version of IE, in order to see the live tile I have to "jump back to the start screen". I cannot surf in Metro IE while viewing the weather.

How do you see that as "equal work"?

Because you can simply continue your routine by running a desktop app that shows the weather while using desktop IE, if that's something you really desire.

You know I was thinking, and this is mostly a continuation of my reply to stevil on resources, right now I have 8 metro apps with live tiles, and Windows 8 is not even in GA (general availability for those who don't know that acronym.) Would you want to try running 8 equivalent background apps in Windows 7, and then do something like play a game of BF3 or Skyrim? Now, maybe they will be low impact apps, and maybe not, and maybe you have enough hardware to handle it all, and maybe not. But I am *guaranteed* to have no issues with this. Also, I imagine, that after a while, I could run several dozen or more live tile apps and get instant one click information for more things than I can just about imagine, would you want to try running 50 live updating (and realistic) back ground apps on Windows 7 and then try doing something like playing a heavy duty 3D game? I think not..

 

[devil22]

Only if said user is using an Application in full screen and on a single monitor though.

in 7, I like to have gadgets open on my left screen, and game/work on the right screen. So everything is at a quick glance. Even more benficial (and one of the features I loved about windows 7) was the ability to pin an app to the side/top/bottom of the screen by dragging it there. So I could have FF, Thunderbird and Steam all open (for example), while still able to monitor my network gadget and system resource gadget on the other half of the second screen.

You can still do this is you're only using legacy apps (assuming you can even use gadgets with windows 8, haven't tried since MS announced their death). So why bother with metro apps at all?

Because I can run an absolutely huge amount of live tile apps with no performance impact, that are strictly sandboxed so I never have to worry that I go looking in google for some app to satisfy a need, and it turns out to be malware. But as you said, you can continue to use desktop apps (if gadgets don't work, and I don't know because I have not tried them and do not see a gadget item in the desktop context menu on RTM you can get other gadget type desktop apps like rainmeter and so on). Granted, I could run things like sandboxie, but average users will benefit from this where as they never have and probably never will, hear about sandboxie. Also the non-existent performance impact is something you can not get, you personally may not need many background gadget type apps, and the ones you need may be well behaved, but I'd like to have 0 performance impact and run many more if I could (and will when they eventually get made.)

Honestly, it just seems like, with a few minor exceptions, most users are going to pick one or the other. The power users and people that work on windows PC's are going to stick with the desktop and the light/casual users are going to stick with metro. I really can't see many people jumping back and forth.

Nobody can predict what users are going to do, but I am finding it very useful to switch between them. I mostly stick on the desktop, then check the live tiles once in a while, and go into metro apps when I get notifications like email and calendar events, and also to mess around with little utilities and what not depending on my mood and needs.

I could be wrong though

edit: and this is what I mean about it not being a seamless experience. It would be really cool, IMO, to have a legacy app (lets say a game) running ontop of metro in a wndows, and position it so a live tile was feeding me the information that I was looking for in a better layout than traditional gadgets. This just isnt possible, but should be. It's things like that, that make Windows 8 feel half baked.

I can see that reasoning, but I think it's better to just keep that on the desktop, the start screen is one click away, metro apps can be made with notifications, so instead of watching a gadget all the time, you could for instance, get a notification when cpu usage goes over 75% for a cpu monitoring app, or when your bandwidth goes over a certain percentage, etc. Don't know if apps like that will be made, but it also makes a potential opportunity if that's something you and others want, and you know a little coding. The start screen is one click away beyond that, and if you must look at the info while using another app, well you could just get regular desktop apps (whatever would satisfy that need, rainmeter or similar.)