4 ms·
None. Zero. This is why I don't understand, say, the Verge's positive Windows 8 review. Sure, the desktop is still "usable." If you ignore Metro, it becomes a
by avolcano 14y ago
None.
Zero.
This is why I don't understand, say, the Verge's positive Windows 8 review. Sure, the desktop is still "usable." If you ignore Metro, it becomes an over-engineered full screen start menu.
And somehow, having the most massive upgrade to Windows be, at best, ignoreable on desktops and laptops doesn't make Windows 8 instantly a massive failure?
- freehunter 14y agoThe usability of Metro is there for the tablet market. The people who don't need a PC and have decided they will not use a PC anymore. PCs are complex and confusing to many casual users. We thought it would get better with education, but we still have millions of young adults who grew up with computers yet are completely unable to function with any slight change. It's easier for them, for one reason or another, to completely jump ship to a tablet. The Metro interface on a PC is designed to stem or reverse that trend. Why jump to a tablet when you can stay with the PC and use it like a tablet? Or better yet, when your tablet IS your PC, and your PC is a tablet. Metro is useful. Maybe not to me, maybe not to you, but we're a small subset of users. There are many who don't tolerate the desktop.
- hnriot 14y agoYou are glossing over all the non-metro reasons like the security and performance.
- jiggy2011 14y agoIs there a performance benefit to running metro apps over desktop apps? The security comes from the sandboxing model rather than the UI.
- SkyMarshal 14y agoHe was probably referring to work on power saving and system resource efficiency. Apparently Windows 8 uses less hardware resources than Windows 7, according to article.
- jiggy2011 14y agoTrue, not really much to do with Metro though.