Do you think Metro will make Windows 8 a flop or a great success?

On a business level I can see why ms is adopting this strategy. It seems like they're basically trying to leverage their pc consumer base to market their ui on smartphones and tablets. It also makes the different ui's similar, making the transition from pc to smartphone almost effortless. Also, most consumers will most probably warm up to the metro ui since it puts their most used programs at the tip of their fingers, whether touch screen enabled or not. And as much as we hate it, it makes the UI more relevant to the times, since people nowadays are more at ease, familiar using a mobile interface (whether it hurts productivity or not).
Sadly, The enthusiast market, which we are part of is of little consequence to ms since we account for such a small portion of their business.
The real big question is whether the business community will jump in. Imho, if ms can make w8 more secure and easier to sync with mobile devices, corporations will adapt this os.
Ms is at the crossroads. Business wise the choice of a unified ui is good business sense. And as much as I hate the metro ui, I think w8 will succeed.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

And there's the mind-boggling part of it all. If MS just made that option available to users, I think Win8 would be very successful. In the desktop it's a good OS. It's quick and responsive. If I could skip the Metro UI/ apps, I would definitely look to upgrade from Win7. Instead MS wants to tell me how I have to use my non-touch laptop. No thanks.

 

I'm not suggesting that W8 will be garbage, to be honest. Technically-speaking, it's just a face-lift of Vista and W7 (all three being in the Windows NT 6 family).

However, I'm just a stubborn person who just wants a decent, efficient computing environment that won't change anything soon. Sure, I'll change out SSDs or other hardware from time to time, but keep the abstract parts of computing the same! I'm sticking to the familiar Start button/task bar, as well as my traditional keyboard (island keyboards can go die ).

I'm thinking that there's a way to "hack" W8 to allow for a traditional desktop, but then again the typical users won't know that and won't bother looking it up.

 

Microsoft is stripping out code that allows for a way to bypass the metro UI.

I think that this is a prime example of the downside of Microsoft's position in the market. They're literally dammned if they do and damned if they dont with nearly every product they make beyond, say, the Xbox:

*if they just keep making small under the hood changes to the same OS paradigm, they'll continue to be seen as boring and noninnovative in the eyes of the average consumer and especially the press. Yet they'd be loved by IT pros, enthusiasts, and everyday users who don't really like changing their experience.

*If they really try to stretch their legs in terms of design direction and make a massive shift, as if one would do if they feel like they have to "prove" their relavency in this increasingly mobile world, then the change resisters (who, adding to MS's bag of hurt, are very vocal and are often key decision makers for both family/friend PC purchases as well as business...I'm guessing but I suspect many of you guys who arent fans of the OS would tell family/friends to steer clear...) will rebel hard. Thus a loss of the enthusiast market which tends to be the biggiest champion of the Windows PC platform's advantages over OS X or Linux to average joes could be damaging in more ways than one.

So what exactly should MS do? Should they conceed that major innovation on the desktop in terms of UI is basically dead since 7 seems to be perfect for many? Eventually people are going to be tired of them peddling the same formula (slightly tweaked underhood versions of 7 with the same UI as now) for 4+ years. What about the tablet game? With windows phone stagnating, releasing tablets would likely be an error of titanic proportions. That, and if someone needed legacy app support, the old ui on the slightly tweaked 7 OS they would have put out instead of 8 would still be non touch friendly...basically resulting in the press again saying that MS "missed the cycle" and is increasingly bordering on irrelavency.

I guess my overall point is an overarching question: How does one keep the classic PC relavent (and even desirable) in today's rapidly shifting marketplace?

 

booboo12. All your points are valid. However, again, why not offer the option for the classic interface? It exists at least it does in the consumer preview, so why not give users the choice? I'm fine if they want to try something new and different. I'm fine if they want to expand into new markets. But they're trying to make a one OS fits all, and it doesn't work, period. There are significant background changes that warrants the need to upgrade without forcing a UI down our throats that many of us abhor and/or do not fine helps productivity.

 

You're missing the point, I think. You can make sweeping design changes, as long as you allow people to stick with the interface they're familiar with. A classic mode would help here. Secondly, it makes no sense to force sweeping design changes on people when they're not an improvement. A fullscreen start menu cluttered with tiles doesn't really strike me as an improvement. If it is, though, people will use it without being forced into it.

 

I do have one question about what is going on wrt Windows 8. If MS is so willing to force the Metro UI on it's customers why don't they force a 64 or 128 Bit from the ground up OS with no legacy code on the tech community?

See that's the confusing part. A radically different UI should also include a radically different File System along with eliminating the Registry. See to me I could do with Windows 8 and buy it in a heartbeat, because the internals and externals of Windows 8 would be different to anything MS has ever designed before.

So on it's current path I do applaud MS for doing something really different but somehow I can't help feel it's a really missed opportunity.

 

Because a UI change pales in comparison to the consequences of making fundamental changes to the underpinnings.

A 128 bit OS without support for 32-bit programs? People would be marching on Redmond with torches and pitchforks.

 

As hocketmass said, you can have both technical innovation while still giving the end user a choice in interface (or sticking with a tried and true method, even though that might clash with your first *). Seeing as how Linux-based OSes allow a user to change desktop interfaces (for example, Unity isn't very popular in the Ubuntu crowd, but you can easily switch to another environment) and how OSX has been able to change technical features while keeping the same desktop interface (and not lose customers) leads me to believe that Microsoft is just pushing Metro to sell another OS.

In my mind, feeling like you have to make these radical changes ever few years is a disadvantage and is what's actually harming them. A good example of this was the transition between XP and Vista: many, many users stuck with XP because it was something they're familiar with and they didn't want to move to the slightly-redesigned Vista interface. Taking the Xbox example again, the 360 is still a popular console system, despite little technical change, and very little interface change (as well as case design in the case of the Slim models). My brother has a 60GB Xbox 360 Premium and I have a 4GB Xbox 360 Slim (+16GB flashdrive) and the only noticeable difference aside from case is that his Xbox is louder (due to the fan) and the different storage capacities.

Intel tried forcing 64-bit only, no legacy code on customers once, with a chip called the Itanium series. Didn't work out so well.

 

128 bit? Very funny. Nobody, but absolutely nobody, needs a 128-bit address space. You do understand that a 64-bit system could, in principle, address up to 4TB of memory (yep, that's 4,096 gigabytes, for you)?

No legacy code? That's even more hilarious. Not being able to run any of the existing code base is a non-starter if there ever was one.

You cannot eliminate the registry without breaking just about 100% of existing code. That is completely and entirely out of the question. Who will buy an OS for which there is no software?

 

Is there any other OS that uses a start-menu-style interface for opening directories and launching programs? I know OSX doesn't; I don't think Ubuntu does from by brief experience with it, but I'm not sure. Don't know about other varieties of Linux.

 

They'd have to employ some kind of registry emulation, perhaps local files stored at program location.
You do realize that back in the day when Windows first came out, there was virtually no software for it? If Microsoft had a big "do over" and started from scratch, I bet you there would be a lot of companies releasing software to fill the void in a short period of time.

 

Slightly off topic, but the 360 got two major UI redesigns although most probably don't remember the blade menu and the last one is more Metro style and the changes were forced through updates both times too.

Personally, i don't mind metro that much, but it baffles me why they removed the feature to disable Metro if it was already there in the first place. I'm willing to bet that MS will only release a half baked tutorial on how to use Metro and Windows 8 which will confuse long time windows users all the more.

I see what MS is tying to do with Metro as in having a unified interface across all platforms they support (well, more or less), but as to whether this is a good or bad thing... I still think Windows 8 won't be a flop, but i doubt it'll get the praise that 7 received.

 

You just can't compare anything NOW to "back in the day when Windows first came out". There just isn't any comparison at all.

 

Indeed, if Microsoft were to do that, the business crowd would take to pitchforks and torches for certain. The change will have to be gradual on that front and they'll have to retain backwards compatibility for a while.

 

Well the comparison is, they had to start from the beginning somewhere. Instead they have the burden of carrying over legacy compatibility from one version to the next to maintain the software base that Windows has accumulated over the years.
But at what point is the benefit lost, and it's just better to start again? All I'm saying is, I think there would be a ton of companies/software developers that would rush in to fill the void if that happened.
As of windows 7 my experience has been, it's a pretty well optimized operating system, and I've never had any crashes that I can recall in the times that I've used it. At this point I see no reason to upgrade at all.

 

The point is that starting from the beginning AT the beginning makes sense. Computers were just starting to be incorporated into daily life and business. Starting from the beginning after 20 years makes no sense.

 

All the Linux window managers used to use essentially the same desktop metaphors as Windows. This has only very recently (maybe a year ago or so) changed with Unity in Ubuntu, which, incidentally, caused a huge uproar in the Linux community, too.

That's patently untrue. I was there, you know. Windows did run all existing software just fine, one way or another. As a matter of fact, whatever you may say against Microsoft, one of their strengths was that they have always bent over backwards to ensure that existing programs and applications will work on their newest operating systems as well. This has changed (slightly) only very recently, when 16-bit support was dropped from 64-bit Windows.

I think you don't quite grasp how many companies rely on legacy software, and how deeply dependent some of them are on such software. It also looks like you have no accurate idea of the sheer amount of legacy software that's out there for Windows systems. "In a short period of time"? You got to be kidding...

Of course, with the virtualization options that are available these days, the issue of being able to run legacy software on new operating systems is somewhat relieved, but nevertheless, there's many pieces of software that you really do want to run natively.

 

Of course, you're right, I have no idea about anything related to computers or windows. I'm sorry for talking out my rear again.

 

Interesting. I did a bit of searching for "Linux window managers" and found screenshots like this. Didn't know Linux used to look like that; I'd only seen the more modern look with a dock/taskbar-based interface.



With Ubuntu and Windows both abandoning that paradigm, and OSX never having it in the first place, though, don't you think it's fair to say that the market as a whole is having a paradigm shift? Not everyone likes the paradigm shift, sure, but it's not just one company that "doesn't get it" and is baselessly barking up the wrong tree. Ubuntu and Windows are utterly unrelated and they've both come to the same conclusion in ditching start menus.

 

^ ^ Wow, that's Kubuntu 8.04!!! Back when I first started using linux. I loved that version, I miss it.

 

Well, if Kubuntu 8.04 being your first experience with Linux is any indication...
The first Linux distribution I installed on my PC was Yggdrasil.

Don't worry about it. I hear that can happen to the best of us.

Seriously, I apologize if I came across as patronizing, this was not my intention. Nevertheless, I stand by the content of what I said.

No, the jury's still out on this. Like I said, a significant part of the Linux community hated, and still hates Unity as well. I commented in an earlier post how, as a consequence, Ubuntu is in fact in danger of loosing its status as the dominant Linux distribution. Now there's an analogy for you...

Of course, with Linux everybody has complete freedom to install whatever user interface they like, so this is much less of an issue that it is in Windows.

 

No problem. We can agree to disagree. I do however completely agree with you on your take of Unity.

 

Take a look at the Linux Mint Cinnamon theme. It has been getting many great reviews and quickly gaining popularity. Ubuuntu has been losing a great deal of users to Mint because of Unity. People still really like Start menus and Microsoft should look closely at this trend.

 

What percentage of users use Mint Cinnamon? How many use OSX? Which OS is growing faster? Mint Cinnamon uses a start menu but no full-screen tablet-style launcher; OSX uses a full-screen tablet-style launcher but no start menu.

 

Ubuntu lost me to Xubuntu because of Unity. I have no interest in trying other distros really.

 

You are asking to compare a percentage with Mint to the total number of users of OSX and that would mean nothing.

As far as which OS is growing faster, that's hard to answer because Mint is actually a distribution and linux the OS. Mint has been growing at a fast rate and I wouldn't be surprised if it were faster than OSX. I don't have figures on hand and I'm heading to bed, but I'll try to dig them up tomorrow.

The point of it was that many people prefer a start menu and the trends we've seen with cinnamon is just another indication.

 

Let's get back on topic, shall we, folks?

 

Sorry. What I was trying to do is to compare what's going on in the Linux world as far as trends and preferences with what might happen with the Windows 8 Metro screen but we went a little too much into Linux and OSX I suppose.

Anyways, if there isn't an option to disable the Metro screen in Windows 8 that may be a deal breaker for me. From the sound of it, a lot of people feel the same way so it very well could mean that Windows 8 will be a flop. I would be angry that I wasn't even given a choice and that MS feels that they know what's best for each and every one of us.

 

have you tried metro yet? For how long?

I understand how people are unhappy with metro. I understand why they are pissed off that they are not even being given a choice. I just dont understand how it will effect my day-to-day usage of my computer that much. 99% of my usage is spent in a web browser, in a word processor, or in another app that wont be changed at all. I start my programs via a pinned taskbar icon (still there in windows 8) or by hitting the start key (still on your keyboard), typing in the application name/part of it (still works), and hitting enter (still works). Metro is a dramatic change, yes, but it's a dramatic change to a very very very small part of the user experience. ME and Vista, the two most trumpeted OS failures (?), changed how applications work. Win8 just changes how they are opened. If i (you) like it, great, but if i (you) dont, it's a minor inconvenience at the most.

 

its looks like MS trued to force us to swith from programms to apps. (mS approved apps in MS store xD )


and in the end of this route you will discover that spend a lot of money on features with you already has in the past

 

Just because YOU aren't affected by it much doesn't mean the others aren't. And if it was just a very very small part of the user experience then why is Microsoft investing so much time and money on developing it?

I think it's great for tablets. No contest from me there. But for a traditional desktop environment, and productivity standpoint, it's horrible.

This is how products become terrible, users just shrug their shoulders, spend their money, and say "whatever". I'm sure for a large number of users it won't matter much, that just browse web and type an occasional document in Word, but that's far from everyone.

 

Yes I have I have tried it for quite some time now in a VM to see if I'll end up liking it or if it's an acquired taste. I'm still struggling to like it and am trying to keep an open a mind as possible. These are just my opinions, though, and am not expecting everyone to agree.

 

A VM isn't going to do any UI justice.

 

I'll give you that, but it still bothers me. I'm getting a new computer in a week and will install the Windows 8 preview on this machine to give it a fair shot.

 

Because it's a huge part of the user experience for tablet users and for computer-illiterate users. It's a small part of the user experience for power users who pin programs to the taskbar and who "hit the start key and start typing" instead of actually navigating through either the start menu or the start screen.

All that said, for the people here who find it insufferable, don't get angry! Just download Linux Mint Cinnamon. We have choices for a reason. When I switched from Windows to OSX in 2004, I wasn't angry, I wasn't upset, I didn't feel betrayed. I just say "this product is better for me than this other product, so I'm going to get it instead." For people who prefer an older-school user interface and ultimate customizability, Mint Cinnamon is a better fit. So why get angry? Why not just switch to a product that's a better fit?

I personally love Win 8, but it would be a boring world indeed if we all used the same OS. And frankly, an effective monopoly is bad for everybody. I'd much rather see Win 8, OSX, and Linux all doing well and vigorously competing.

 

I'm not angry, I'm FURIOUS!

No, but Linux isn't Windows. And a large part of my reason for sticking with Windows over Linux is games. Not to mention lots of app compatibility and support for drivers, etc. Optimus is far from Linux friendly. My camera software is Windows and Mac only, dozens of MS apps that I'm very familiar with that don't exist in Linux, or there are likely alternatives but that's another whole learning curve.

Unless you're just using a browser and text editor, telling someone to "just use Linux" isn't a solution.

 

This is either an unbelievably naive question, or not serious in one way or another. For Linux specifically (and, to an only slightly lesser extent for OS X), there's literally hundreds of thousands of Windows programs, from obscure little utilities to major productivity suites like MS Office, CAE systems, analysis tools, etc., etc., that are simply not available on any other platform. For those of us who do actual work on computers (remember those?) rather than just diddle around with them, there is no choice, other than regarding the version of Windows we are using.

Exactly.

 

I am really, really, REALLY sick of your repeated asssertions that I'm being disingenuous and don't believe what I'm arguing.

When I switched from Windows XP to OSX Tiger, there was a tiny fraction of the software available for OSX, particularly because Apple hadn't switched from PowerPC to Intel at the time. I still switched. Why? Because I liked the user experience a lot better, despite the software availability issues (I'm not one of the people who waxes nostalgic about XP).

 

I really couldn't care less about your particular sensitivities, let alone what it is you think I believe or assert. I recommend you just stick to what it is I am writing; as a scientist, I am used to expressing myself concisely, neither adding nor omitting relevant material.

I repeat, there are people in this world that are expected to use certain pieces of software, many of which are only available for Windows. Those people do not have the luxury of the kind of choice you made. Thus the fact that you were able to make such a choice is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. I hope this was clear enough.

 

For MANY people switching to another OS is not an option.

 

To be fair, I do a lot more than that in linux. Admittedly there are a few things I cannot do in linux and thus require windows. My scanner for instance only has Windows or MacOS drivers, and I need the copy utilities because the basic run-of-the-mill linux interface doesn't have all the options I need. Then there's games. Wine is still not up to snuff, and I get far better performance and compatibility just running them natively in windows.
Linux unfortunately lacks in the driver department, that's been my experience for the last 4 years. More often we have to rely on community open source drivers because the industry largely does not support linux. Unfortunately the open source versions are often buggy, and if you can get things to work they're usually quirky and half-assed.
Still when it comes to internet security I feel better about running linux than any other operating system.

 

Folks, keep it civil or it will go to thread lock.

 

That's the problem. Linux is great in theory, and has a ton of support for it. But being open source it has its share of issues because of that. I know Linux *can* do a lot more, but the issue is that if you already have a lot of Windows apps, and many of us do, even if the Linux version is free there's still a learning curve, or additional investment for the Linux version. But if all you do primarily is browse web and basic Office apps, then Linux will be a fairly painless transition.

 

i would be using XP still if i had a choice...i prefered 2000 the most but it was missing some new features as xp so i git used to xp after awhile...i really hate windows 7 but i am going to loose my mind with win 8....shoot me now

 

I understand people holding over from XP when Vista was out, but what's wrong with 7? Loved XP to death and still used it until I wiped it a year or two ago, but 7's pretty decent.

 

I never liked XP. Not one bit. Used it daily on my work machine for five years, but used OSX on my home machines during that period.

You couldn't pin programs to the taskbar, and you couldn't launch programs with the start menu search bar. You had to either use desktop shortcuts (useless once you had a few Windows open) or you had to navigate through the trees of subfolders in the start menu. Didn't enjoy it at all.

I've never understood why everyone gets all nostalgic about XP. Sure, it was stable, but so is an anvil, doesn't mean it's fun to interact with.

 

Well XP ended up being a ten year old OS with few GUI updates because Vista was a complete flop. OSX Cheetah and Puma weren't all that great either.

 

I'm one of those rare people who preferred Vista to XP. The search box in the start menu and Aero interface being my favourite features (especially the search!). 7 however was better than Vista in every single way and I am very content with it. I upgraded as soon as 7 was out but I get a feeling I will not be doing the same for 8. I fail to see how Metro benefits non-touch keyboard & mouse users in anyway whatsoever.

 

As long as you can turn Metro off, W8 will be just as good as W7.