5 ms·

> why include metro in the PC version? To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which

> why include metro in the PC version? To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. > Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode? Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not. > So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user? Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.

freehunter 14y ago
To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. FUD. Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not. FUD. Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place. Incorrect. Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to settle a personal vendetta.
- css771 14y ago
  > To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. FUD. Not FUD. I agree with that statement the parent said. Why else would Microsoft think of including the Metro interface with the desktop. It doesn't make sense.
- JohnsonB 14y ago
  >To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. >FUD. I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an argument to support your "FUD" assertion.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Because Microsoft wasn't trying to build a Tablet OS. They were trying to build a Desktop and Tablet OS, and a new interface that should (at least theoretically) work on both was to come with it. Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?
    - JohnsonB 14y ago
      A separate interface that's optimized for touch based devices makes sense. But that doesn't explain why for one, did they have to use the tablet-optimized interface for the default, user friendly desktop mode, and secondly, why did they force the traditional desktop users to use a dumbed-down comprised desktop interface without a start menu?
      - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        The new one is user-friendly, it's just different from the old one. Also, the lack of "start menu" doesn't matter so much if you use search to find apps. And the start screen is great for info at a glance.
  - ax 14y ago
    > There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds. You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two usage modes in one device. > Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? Because it's better [1]. (I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences) [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  If you don't want downvotes then don't just reply by quoting the parent and writing "FUD".
  - freehunter 14y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious that FUD is what the parent was saying. Objectively, you really don't need more than what the parent provided to understand this.
- r00fus 14y ago
  If you reply with one-word dismissals, you are going to get ignored (which is really what a downvote means). The fact is, Microsoft hasn't given a real good reason why Metro should exist on the desktop. Examples: Some would say, for example, that Google's Chrome browser is evil because Google wants to monopolize the internet -- but Chrome is a very good browser, it's opinionated, but a successful product, so people can safely ignore concerns about Google's incursion into the browser space. Another good example is Apple's iMessage which makes texts free for iPhone users to each other. Again, by offering cost savings to the end user, Apple bolsters iPhone appeal in ways that greatly offset whatever it costs them to get mobile operators like AT&T to provide this feature (I'm sure it's not free to Apple). Some would argue that this preferential pricing is unfair to smaller handset manufacturers like LG or HTC as it would be impossible for say, free texts from Android to Android and HTC to HTC is too small for anyone to care. If you're so pro-Metro here, you need to explain what advantages it provides to the end user. Right now, it's looks like a giant roadblock to your average desktop user.
  - fname 14y ago
    They're attempting to bridge the gap between a tablet and PC using 1 operating system. If played right, it could be a huge advantage to people really only needing one device for everything. You can see this in the new OEM devices coming out (ASUS Transformers, Samsung, etc..) Why would I want 2 different operating systems if the underlying goal is to reduce the complexities of needing 2 devices... one for 'play' and one for 'work'?
    - xymostech 14y ago
      Because sometimes you want different operating systems for different purposes? Presumably you don't want a phone OS running on your website servers, and you don't want a server-optimized version of linux running on your phone. My phone is supposed to be good at calling, texting, and browsing the web on the go. That's a much different purpose than my laptop, which is meant for coding, etc. So doesn't it make sense for them to have different operating systems?
      - 14y ago
sigkill 14y ago
Regarding point #1: I think that's the only thing going on for Microsoft. For instance, I have Windows 8 on a laptop. After using that for a while, my mom atleast appeared quite comfortable using a Windows phone at the mall. Not to repeat the same point again and again, but this could definitely be Microsofts' moment of truth. Basically, I feel MS is going all in, double or nothing or whatever other comparison you want to pull out. The problem is, if it works, people will laud MS for their bold move. If it spectacularly blows up in their faces, everyone will spare no words in saying "They should've known. It was obvious. People were complaining way before they even launched." I personally feel MS is at that point in time where services and hardware each are taking value away from the software and they feel desperate to throw anything at the wall. I'm also pretty sure that they don't really expect the Enterprise folks to use Metro so I wouldn't be really surprised if somewhere down the line, they release an "Enterprise/Professional" only service pack that allows you to boot to Desktop.
- latortuga 14y ago
  Regarding your last comment about booting to Desktop: you can already access the full desktop and I'm guessing there's a preference to say "just boot me to the desktop".
  - usea 14y ago
    There is no such preference, no such registry setting or group policy. You have to use an executable that's set to run on startup that will show the desktop. Or you can hack/replace the shell. http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-start-screen http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-st...
  - sigkill 14y ago
    Well yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Right now, there's no actual way to directly to boot there. So the best quasi-hack I do is move the desktop tile to the top-most position. When the computer has just booted up, this allows me to simply press "Enter" and go to the desktop since I'm too lazy to use the mouse.
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
I agree with points #1 and #2 but disagree with point #3. But that's not interesting, what's interesting is that it might actually work. Or at least, it seems very plausible to work.
memnips 14y ago
In regard to #1, Microsoft wants to leverage their desktop monopoly to force users into the Metro ecosystem thus forcing developers to build Metro apps. I don't believe it's to get users comfortable with Microsoft's interface on mobile offerings though that is clearly a side-effect.
brigade 14y ago
I still don't get the obsession with hidden controls. Why couldn't they have kept the start button, even with the current Windows 8 functionality. Instead you must guess that a hidden button appears if you move the cursor to one of two corners of the screen, and are careful to not move too far away from the screen edge as you move to click it. It's not the only example of critical core functionality being hidden and undiscoverable by default, but it's certainly the most glaring.
- contextfree 14y ago
  The rule is that apps should have 100% of the screen devoted to them, and not persistent system chrome. It's a promise they want to be able to make to developers. The app gets every pixel, not the system.
- sukuriant 14y ago
  You don't have to move to click the little start menu preview, you don't even have to wait for the preview to show up, you just bring your mouse to the corner and click. There's no aiming, just "throw mouse to corner and click".
darklajid 14y ago
Replying to the your first point, 'getting familiar with the mobile interface': How? Seriously? I'm using both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 (same .. thing, for this comparison) and I fail to see what you mean. In Windows 7 I did these steps to launch an application: - Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button - Type application name - Enter In Windows 8 / Windows Server 2012 I need these steps: - Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button - Type application name - Enter Yeah, the UI is different while I type. But it's on the same level as moving from Launchy on Windows XP to just using the start menu in Windows 7: The interface is really just presentation and not that relevant. Metro isn't good for anything else, for all I can tell. There's no bait. It's .. useless. First thing to do is Windows/Super+D to get to the desktop. There you need Windows/Super for the 'launcher', Windows/Super + w for a launcher for the control panel/settings apps and Windows/Super + x (neat shortcuts, thing lean start menu) and Windows/Super + i (uhm.. For .. shutdown? That's what I use that for). So as a user of two 'metro' platforms I disagree heavily with your opinion. I don't think that this is happening, I don't think that this could happen and I really, really doubt that someone placed a bet on this, coming from their mobile platform.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  This is great to hear, thanks. I've been using launchers exclusively on Linux the past few years and love not having to use the mouse anymore for that. Glad to see this isn't just a trend in the Linux world, but that Windows is now being built around the concept as well.
  - cduser 14y ago
    Search in Start Menu was there since Windows Vista. After getting accustomed to that, the Start Menu of XP looked too awful!

freehunter 14y ago

To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. FUD. Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not. FUD. Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place. Incorrect. Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to settle a personal vendetta.

css771 14y ago
> To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. FUD. Not FUD. I agree with that statement the parent said. Why else would Microsoft think of including the Metro interface with the desktop. It doesn't make sense.
JohnsonB 14y ago
>To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user acceptance on their own. >FUD. I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an argument to support your "FUD" assertion.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Because Microsoft wasn't trying to build a Tablet OS. They were trying to build a Desktop and Tablet OS, and a new interface that should (at least theoretically) work on both was to come with it. Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?
  - JohnsonB 14y ago
    A separate interface that's optimized for touch based devices makes sense. But that doesn't explain why for one, did they have to use the tablet-optimized interface for the default, user friendly desktop mode, and secondly, why did they force the traditional desktop users to use a dumbed-down comprised desktop interface without a start menu?
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      The new one is user-friendly, it's just different from the old one. Also, the lack of "start menu" doesn't matter so much if you use search to find apps. And the start screen is great for info at a glance.
- ax 14y ago
  > There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds. You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two usage modes in one device. > Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? Because it's better [1]. (I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences) [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
jiggy2011 14y ago
If you don't want downvotes then don't just reply by quoting the parent and writing "FUD".
- freehunter 14y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that FUD is what the parent was saying. Objectively, you really don't need more than what the parent provided to understand this.
r00fus 14y ago
If you reply with one-word dismissals, you are going to get ignored (which is really what a downvote means). The fact is, Microsoft hasn't given a real good reason why Metro should exist on the desktop. Examples: Some would say, for example, that Google's Chrome browser is evil because Google wants to monopolize the internet -- but Chrome is a very good browser, it's opinionated, but a successful product, so people can safely ignore concerns about Google's incursion into the browser space. Another good example is Apple's iMessage which makes texts free for iPhone users to each other. Again, by offering cost savings to the end user, Apple bolsters iPhone appeal in ways that greatly offset whatever it costs them to get mobile operators like AT&T to provide this feature (I'm sure it's not free to Apple). Some would argue that this preferential pricing is unfair to smaller handset manufacturers like LG or HTC as it would be impossible for say, free texts from Android to Android and HTC to HTC is too small for anyone to care. If you're so pro-Metro here, you need to explain what advantages it provides to the end user. Right now, it's looks like a giant roadblock to your average desktop user.
- fname 14y ago
  They're attempting to bridge the gap between a tablet and PC using 1 operating system. If played right, it could be a huge advantage to people really only needing one device for everything. You can see this in the new OEM devices coming out (ASUS Transformers, Samsung, etc..) Why would I want 2 different operating systems if the underlying goal is to reduce the complexities of needing 2 devices... one for 'play' and one for 'work'?
  - xymostech 14y ago
    Because sometimes you want different operating systems for different purposes? Presumably you don't want a phone OS running on your website servers, and you don't want a server-optimized version of linux running on your phone. My phone is supposed to be good at calling, texting, and browsing the web on the go. That's a much different purpose than my laptop, which is meant for coding, etc. So doesn't it make sense for them to have different operating systems?
    - 14y ago

sigkill 14y ago

Regarding point #1: I think that's the only thing going on for Microsoft. For instance, I have Windows 8 on a laptop. After using that for a while, my mom atleast appeared quite comfortable using a Windows phone at the mall. Not to repeat the same point again and again, but this could definitely be Microsofts' moment of truth. Basically, I feel MS is going all in, double or nothing or whatever other comparison you want to pull out. The problem is, if it works, people will laud MS for their bold move. If it spectacularly blows up in their faces, everyone will spare no words in saying "They should've known. It was obvious. People were complaining way before they even launched." I personally feel MS is at that point in time where services and hardware each are taking value away from the software and they feel desperate to throw anything at the wall. I'm also pretty sure that they don't really expect the Enterprise folks to use Metro so I wouldn't be really surprised if somewhere down the line, they release an "Enterprise/Professional" only service pack that allows you to boot to Desktop.

latortuga 14y ago
Regarding your last comment about booting to Desktop: you can already access the full desktop and I'm guessing there's a preference to say "just boot me to the desktop".
- usea 14y ago
  There is no such preference, no such registry setting or group policy. You have to use an executable that's set to run on startup that will show the desktop. Or you can hack/replace the shell. http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-start-screen http://www.7tutorials.com/how-boot-desktop-windows-8-skip-st...
- sigkill 14y ago
  Well yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Right now, there's no actual way to directly to boot there. So the best quasi-hack I do is move the desktop tile to the top-most position. When the computer has just booted up, this allows me to simply press "Enter" and go to the desktop since I'm too lazy to use the mouse.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

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

memnips 14y ago

In regard to #1, Microsoft wants to leverage their desktop monopoly to force users into the Metro ecosystem thus forcing developers to build Metro apps. I don't believe it's to get users comfortable with Microsoft's interface on mobile offerings though that is clearly a side-effect.

brigade 14y ago

I still don't get the obsession with hidden controls. Why couldn't they have kept the start button, even with the current Windows 8 functionality. Instead you must guess that a hidden button appears if you move the cursor to one of two corners of the screen, and are careful to not move too far away from the screen edge as you move to click it. It's not the only example of critical core functionality being hidden and undiscoverable by default, but it's certainly the most glaring.

contextfree 14y ago
The rule is that apps should have 100% of the screen devoted to them, and not persistent system chrome. It's a promise they want to be able to make to developers. The app gets every pixel, not the system.
sukuriant 14y ago
You don't have to move to click the little start menu preview, you don't even have to wait for the preview to show up, you just bring your mouse to the corner and click. There's no aiming, just "throw mouse to corner and click".

darklajid 14y ago

Replying to the your first point, 'getting familiar with the mobile interface': How? Seriously? I'm using both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 (same .. thing, for this comparison) and I fail to see what you mean. In Windows 7 I did these steps to launch an application: - Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button - Type application name - Enter In Windows 8 / Windows Server 2012 I need these steps: - Press 'Windows' (Super, whatever) button - Type application name - Enter Yeah, the UI is different while I type. But it's on the same level as moving from Launchy on Windows XP to just using the start menu in Windows 7: The interface is really just presentation and not that relevant. Metro isn't good for anything else, for all I can tell. There's no bait. It's .. useless. First thing to do is Windows/Super+D to get to the desktop. There you need Windows/Super for the 'launcher', Windows/Super + w for a launcher for the control panel/settings apps and Windows/Super + x (neat shortcuts, thing lean start menu) and Windows/Super + i (uhm.. For .. shutdown? That's what I use that for). So as a user of two 'metro' platforms I disagree heavily with your opinion. I don't think that this is happening, I don't think that this could happen and I really, really doubt that someone placed a bet on this, coming from their mobile platform.

SkyMarshal 14y ago
This is great to hear, thanks. I've been using launchers exclusively on Linux the past few years and love not having to use the mouse anymore for that. Glad to see this isn't just a trend in the Linux world, but that Windows is now being built around the concept as well.
- cduser 14y ago
  Search in Start Menu was there since Windows Vista. After getting accustomed to that, the Start Menu of XP looked too awful!