4 ms·

>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

>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-...
- eropple 14y ago
  > 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. With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.) > Because it's better [1]. I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town. [1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.

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-...

eropple 14y ago
> 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. With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.) > Because it's better [1]. I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town. [1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.