Windows 8 Media Center Will Be An Add-On - Page 5

Windows won out over DOS because (among other things) it offered users more functionality: here was a simple, convenient way to run multiple programs and multiple instances of the same program at the same time. You can easily switch and move information from one window to another.

The Metro UI offers less functionality -- at best, you can run two programs on the same screen, and they can't overlap. In this sense, Metro is less capable than even Windows 2.0.

That's just your opinion. There is more to an OS than just show multiple instances of the same app multiple times. Your mind is clearly still stuck in DOS mentality


There are more to the Metro UI than the simple interface you see. It needs some time to get into it. That's why Microsoft didn't abandon desktop mode in this release.

People freaking out over the Metro design is why MS created a weird hybrid of the current Windows desktop and Metro. For better or worse I think they should of just bit the bullet and went 100% into a whole new UI.

And you know what would happen? Their sales would drop, and people would stay with what they are used to. There are people out there still using AOL on dial-up, because they have this fear that if they go with a faster product, it will break something.

It took people forever to abandon Win-98 in favor of Xp, same with those that have XP, are holdin out still to go to 7.

That requires a visionary CEO who is willing to innovate and takes risks. Steve Ballmer is neither. Like everyone else said, he is just a sales guy.

I think it has less to do with Steve Ballmer and more to do with the general public is afraid of total change. If they went Metro exclusive the masses would be furious...

All you meed to do, is look at the drop in Windows mobile OS based phones, when the metro interface was introduced. They can't even give them away. Because people hate the interface, and the fact that it is a always streaming interface using up their data allowance with carriers.

agree with the first part. this version of windows needs to keep both feet in the old and new because Windows has gigantic Enterprise and Legacy issues that need to work on new machines.

I like the idea as the desktop as an app this generation, and give it 3-4 years of widespread adoption and developer interaction and look for the next version of Windows to go even further down the metro design and further away from the desktop metaphor. the next revision will be your 100% metro thing.

MS just can't pull the rug out all at once. and it is MS....no matter what they did, the internet is going to bitch.

It's hardly a new approach. For how long did Word include a Wordperfect emulation mode?

wordperfect? whats that? I kid....

i'm not saying it is, but what I guess what I'm saying is MS is essentially damned if they do, damned if they dont. And I'm not defending them, I'm just stating a fact that they feel like they cant go into the deep of the water with Windows 8, and they're probably right.

eh..to be fair, every modern mobile OS is using some sort of data in the background

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was actually agreeing with your post.

Like you, I don't see the big problem with them including a choice of continuing to use the existing interface. They've done that with Windows and Office lots of times. If they didn't, lots of people simply wouldn't change. Not sure why they should be criticized for that. IF (and that's the big question) the new interface is better, then over time people will slowly migrate to it.

On the other hand, it was only in the past couple of months that the installed base of Windows 7 finally surpassed that of XP (and there is little doubt that 7 is a vast step up, but the Vista experience made a lot of people gun-shy about changing I suspect). So change usually comes slowly.

By the way, Wordperfect still exists, new versions continue to be released, and there are still some organizations (law firms and govt offices in particular) that still use it.

The Metro UI imposes all the limitations of a tablet onto machines with keyboards, mice, 21"+ screens, and magnitudes more processing power and storage capacity. This is not progress.

You can easily access the desktop and work there if you prefer it. Metro is really a graphical replacement for Start. Once you accept that, it makes more sense.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but IMO Vista being so bad kept a lot of people on XP and delayed the move to Windows 7. It's really tough to overcome a mistake like MS made with Vista.

It doesn't make sense that it takes up the entirety of the screen on a PC. Nor does it make sense that in a GUI we now have to rely on keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures and removal of visual cues and are basically being limited to single tasking if what we want to run unfortunately comes in Metro flavor.

If MS had just made Metro run on the desktop on desktop machines instead of trying to take them over there wouldn't be this blowback. Tablets are something to use when you don't have access to, or need a fully capable computer, not something to try and hammer a fully capable computer into.

Well I think thats fairly incorrect. There are alot of issues with wp adoption, but I don't think there is any evidence that its due to a majority rejecting the interface.

The problem is exposure and mind share in the market. WP has lacked real, national or global marketing and its had lacked reasonable backing by the various carriers, not to mention lacking a flagship phone to sell it. Only now are all three of those things starting to change.

That is totally outdated thinking for a very large and very rapidly growing part of the population.

The day when the tablet market (by units) will exceed that of traditional PCs is expected to occur before the end of 2013.

Microsoft knows it and isn't going to get left behind again.

So your saying you would prefer MS had left the standard start menu and then made Metro some kind of app to launch in windows like Media Center?

The solution they came up with seems to be a fairly good option. Yes you have a full screen start menu, but for those of us that want the desktop, its just one click away. To me it feels like a login screen. I boot straight to it and then click to the desktop. It just doesn't seem that jarring after a while.

The biggest issue is indeed not having the same visual cues, but i don't exactly hate the mouse gestures or going to the corners for various actions. It is another thing that seems less and less difficult as I use it. Of course Ive been using keyboard shortcuts for years, so that isn't difficult.

Within Metro itself, it is clearly aimed at tablets and i agree that its just not going to replace how we use a desktop now, it is more limiting. But, where it shines for desktops could be in individual apps. There is alot of potential there for some specialized apps leveraging WinRT. Anything that is meant to be a full screen app could work very nicely (such as a media app like media center).

That's just your opinion.

If my mind were "still stuck in DOS mentality," I'd be complaining that Windows had overtaken DOS. But on the contrary, I welcome the increased functionality that Windows offered over DOS. It is for that same reason of functionality that I view Metro as a step backward. And yes, my assessment of Windows 8 has to do with a lot more than just being able to run multiple programs and windows simultaneously.


I've been using Windows 8 since the Developer Preview. By now I am quite sure that (in contrast to my experience with Windows 98 vs. DOS), no amount of time will suffice to appreciate the Metro environment. I may download the release candidate if it's publicly available, but I'm not holding my breath (as I did with the CP over the DP) waiting for MS to offer users the choice to operate in an exclusively desktop environment.

And if Microsoft ultimately eliminates the Desktop in future editions of Windows, as your last sentence suggests, then there will be nothing for me to like about Windows. Other people may love it, but then I'm not other people. I respect their opinions -- it's their life -- and I hope that they will respect mine.

If those are the only two choices, absolutely. In as much as it brings to the table, Metro is a step backwards in functionality and efficiency in many ways over the traditional start menu. This guy seems to get that far more than MS does:
http://www.neowin.net/news/interview...s-about-start8

Funny, but the same things have been said every time there has been a major change in the GUI and every time it's become more "push button."

"It's bloated."
"It takes up too much processing power and storage space and is too slow."
"It's for idiots that don't know how to use a computer, not for power users."
"It just gets in the way."
etc.
etc.
etc.

About two years later people finally recognize just how much better the new one is.

Maybe we should go back to punchcards and teletype terminals.

Given that we are stepping back to single tasking and command line navigation in Metro maybe we will.

I take it you are going by the FUD that Microsoft helped to spread around. Believe it or not, the interface for Vista is no different than the interface for 7. They are basically the same OS, but under the hood there are subtle changes. The same with 8, but the killer for 8 is going to be the GUI, and people will state that 8 is the ME of windows, which again is FUD spread by the ignorant masses.

Plus people actually liked the new Start menu in Vista. It's the reason ViStart, one of the programs people are using to bring the start menu back to Win8, even exists.

The FUD is spread by all the media publications, not MS. I've used Vista since its launch and never felt it is a subpar OS compared to XP. Win7 is a native progress over Vista but not much. Ppl are sheeps (either iSheep or else). When they see big changes, they resist. The biggest change in Vista is UAC. That's why they hated it. I personally likes UAC a lot. But to most, they can't be bother for a brief second to re-evalute what he/she is doing to the system. Then they blame Windows is too insecure because it lets all kinds of virus and worms in.

Same FUD is going on strong right now for the Metro UI.

UAC was hated in Vista because it went off for everything up to and including scratching your butt. Sounding an alert and asking confirmation for every benign task just trains people to dismiss it. It was terribly implemented in Vista and really not much improved for Win7. But we're really drifting off the thread topic.

Count me in as one of the ignorant masses, I don't want a tablet/phone UI on my HTPC, laptop, or desktop. But what can I say, I get annoyed with any change to the control panel to. Changing things for ease of use doesn't really work when you are already familiar with a way of doing it that is the easiest way.

That is mainly because most apps aren't think it through when they implemented way back in the old days. As a Windows app developer, I have to rewrite all my apps so that it won't trigger the UAC unless it is necessary. Part of the problem is that old apps are created based on the assumption that everyone has ALL access to everything even though it is not necessary for that. UAC forces a lot of app developers like me to re-think the app security. Which in turn makes Windows eco system much safer today than before UAC is invented. Turning off UAC or pretend your app is doing the right thing when in fact it is not is not a solution.

The solution would have been MS adding a whitelist or allowing UAC to remember allow/deny settings for each program. As it is now UAC has been reduced to little more than one extra annoying and mindless click to do whatever it is you want to do. It was a terrible misstep that has perpetually ruined what was a decent idea.