You came in mid-conversation so you understandably don't understand what we were talking about.
I know exactly what you're all talking about. I'm just saying that Windows 8 proper looks like Chrome. They can't seem to do squat on their own.
And it is proper. People are going to panic when they see that overlay. They want their line at the bottom with the time on the right. They want their blue E in the top left. And they want their stretched, tiled, or centered picture that is too small for the screen to show up.
As little as 8 second boot time. Sleep/wake seem instant. More importantly standby power consumption has been improved.
It's there if you want it. However, chances are with contracts you won't be using the file system often. The idea of contracts is a big deal and is something that is going to sell systems. Have a look at this video at 49:45.
I don't think the registry is available from WinRT - the new Windows runtime that drives the metro "start screen" UI. I'll have to confirm that though.
As perceptive an analysis as to why Windows 8 will fail as you will find.
Got about half way before I couldn't be bothered to read any more. The guy is clearly an idiot with statements like "Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant". Now Microsofts main market has always been the OS for enterprise and the Office package for enterprise and so far they haven't lost any sales in either. Xbox doesn't seem to be doing to badly either.
Also completely missed out by anyone is the fact millions and millions of people will use Windows 8 because they will have it at work. So when it comes to selling tablets, people may actually like it because they know it and they've technically already used it. Right now people looking at android tablets just go WTF, what does it do? Same reason nobody's going out buying a linux pc.
Anyway...
Been playing with Win8 on a non touch screen laptop and have to say it works well. The start screen does actually work as a start menu, I was a bit worried that it would be a bit of a downgrade from Win7's awesome start menu, but things like search are still there but only appear when you start typing. The best way to think of the Start screen is Launchpad merged with Dashboard and Spotlight.
So basically for tablets metro is a great UI for touch. For desktops and laptops, metro is a great start menu, giving you easy access to things like news, tweets and general online services without having to visit a website or open a program.
Some negatives though...
The lock screen is stupid. Having to slide a pic up on a desktop is awful, it should recognise you have a mouse and work on a click, apart from that the customisable notifications on the lock screen are a real plus.
The new ribbon in explorer is just ridiculous, luckily you can hide it, but really, WTF are all those buttons about!!!
Also not seeing how "a few lines of code" magically does all the work of converting a desktop UI metaphor to a useable tablet version. Apple has spend a lot of time and effort to write iPad versions of things like the iWork suite, and I'm pretty sure there's more to it than a few lines of code.
I've played with the demo, looked at the dev tools and read a bit of the documentation. Basically you need to write a few lines of code.
Obviously we're talking more than 5 or 6 when we say a few, and your not going to be making something like Photoshop touch friendly. But ultimately all your doing is re-positioning some stuff, making buttons bigger. Your business logic layers going to stay as it is.
With the HTML5 support built in as well, it also looks like without to much pain you could get that running as an app to.
Do you gain anything by acting like a jerk? I've gone out of my way to be helpful. I would think you could at least act like a decent human.
Chrome refers to pc widgets in general. They mention the term about 500 times in the Windows 8 keynotes. Also the classic desktop doesn't look like Googles Chrome browser, hence my request for clarification.
The lock screen is stupid. Having to slide a pic up on a desktop is awful, it should recognise you have a mouse and work on a click, apart from that the customisable notifications on the lock screen are a real plus.
I'd like to see how it feels with a multi-touch trackpad or multi-touch mouse.
You don't know about computing if you think "chrome" instantly means Google chrome (unless you are being sarcastic, in which case I have egg on my face) .In computing the "System Chrome" refers to the graphical user interface elements of an operating system or software application. So if I was to alter the system chrome of my application, what I would then effectively be doing is altering or replacing the widget designs.
Before people pass judgement on Win 8 they really ought to give this video presentation by Jensen Harris a look. It really is informative as to the philosophy behind Metro UI and how Win 8 tablets should look feel and function when they hit the market. MS presentations in the pasty were usually painful to watch but this one is not. This guy seems to 'get it'.
I have no idea if Win 8 tablets, or Windows 8 in general, will be successful. They are taking quite a gamble IMO. The traditional Windows desktop is taking a back seat to the Metro UI. On a positive note, they have an interesting and unique interface. They have a large developer base and frankly MS can write apps if they need to fill in gaps on the platform. But Win 7 phones running the Metro UI have not exactly lit the world on fire and so MS is betting the farm on a UI that has been for the most part rejected by consumers. I guess time will tell how well this eventually does. I think the marketing strategy may be brilliant. By having the MEtro UI the default UI of WIn 8, a lot of people who aren't familiar with the Metro UI are going to get exposed to it. They may like what they see and give Win 7 phones and Win 8 tablets consideration.
You don't know about computing if you think "chrome" instantly means Google chrome (unless you are being sarcastic, in which case I have egg on my face) .In computing the "System Chrome" refers to the graphical user interface elements of an operating system or software application. So if I was to alter the system chrome of my application, what I would then effectively be doing is altering or replacing the widget designs.
I have never heard that once in any paper I have read, any website I have visited, any research I have done, nor any class I have taken.
I have never heard that once in any paper I have read, any website I have visited, any research I have done, nor any class I have taken.
It's just not the case.
I think its more "off the books", as it were. One or two references to it I've read in some past papers at University, caught my old HCI lecturer saying it from time to time and when developing for Adobe AIR you can choose to have a "custom chrome" (create your own window widgets) or use the system chrome (default OS skin).
In computing the "System Chrome" refers to the graphical user interface elements of an operating system or software application. So if I was to alter the system chrome of my application, what I would then effectively be doing is altering or replacing the widget designs.
What??? I have honestly never heard of that term before.
DED digs up a lot of good info, and certainly has some well-placed sources. Many of his comments are truly insightful and I honestly enjoy reading his articles, even if they're often a bit sensationalist. I would not depend on him for my sole impression on why something will fail or succeed though. His readers gravitate to him because he sees the tech-world thru Apple-green glasses. He's the ultimate "rabid-fanboy", or at least he plays one very well (I'm not convinced he really means all that he writes).
By no means is this a hit on DED. He is who he is, and has certainly seen success and attention by writing over-the-top commentary. The blogoshere is well-covered by timid writers and we need "DED's" to shake things up and stimulate discussion.
My hat's off to him. Just understand he doesn't even pretend to be objective.
I've played with the demo, looked at the dev tools and read a bit of the documentation. Basically you need to write a few lines of code.
Obviously we're talking more than 5 or 6 when we say a few, and your not going to be making something like Photoshop touch friendly. But ultimately all your doing is re-positioning some stuff, making buttons bigger. Your business logic layers going to stay as it is.
With the HTML5 support built in as well, it also looks like without to much pain you could get that running as an app to.
Well, see, I think that's a problem. As I've said, if your response to making an app "touch friendly" is to make buttons bigger and reposition some stuff then you've failed. You got a bunch of Windows apps with an awkward interface and little consistency between them, which is basically the model that MS has been failing at for years. You get Windows 7 Touch Edition with a nicer overlay.
Now, I've watched the talk on making good Metro apps, and MS is providing a template for new apps so they have consistency. But it doesn't look like that applies to ported apps, and guess which category is going to be bigger? Especially when MS is pitching how easy it is to just make some button bigger and whatnot?
Again, as I've been saying, this kind of thing, plus the fallback Windows environment, really encourages the path of least resistance. I can't see a great deal of incentive for developers to write great Metro apps, or to take care with moving big apps over, when they can default to Windows or just do a cursory touch job.
My guess is we'll see a bunch of Twitter clients, Facebook apps, weather apps, friend feeds, photo sharing apps, etc. right out of the gate. In other words, widgets made big by Metro, and positioned as first class citizens. Productivity apps are going to be thin on the ground to non-existant, and with MS probably having no plans at all to offer a Metro Office.
Meanwhile, Apple isn't playing games with a "few lines of code" transition from OS X (although I'm sure it would be technically possible) because they know that real tablet apps have to be designed from the ground up. And they're clearly intent on pushing the boundaries of what you can do on a tablet, with each iteration of iWork for the iPad gaining ground on its desktop analog. They're doing that because the iPad doesn't have OS X to fall back on, and Apple doesn't think that that's where the puck will be. They think touch is the next mainstream computing paradigm, and they're not content to leave the heavy lifting to desktops. Clearly, MS is, and if they're wrong they've possibly made their last big mistake.
Well, see, I think that's a problem. As I've said, if your response to making an app "touch friendly" is to make buttons bigger and reposition some stuff then you've failed. You got a bunch of Windows apps with an awkward interface and little consistency between them, which is basically the model that MS has been failing at for years. You get Windows 7 Touch Edition with a nicer overlay.
Now, I've watched the talk on making good Metro apps, and MS is providing a template for new apps so they have consistency. But it doesn't look like that applies to ported apps, and guess which category is going to be bigger? Especially when MS is pitching how easy it is to just make some button bigger and whatnot?
Again, as I've been saying, this kind of thing, plus the fallback Windows environment, really encourages the path of least resistance. I can't see a great deal of incentive for developers to write great Metro apps, or to take care with moving big apps over, when they can default to Windows or just do a cursory touch job.
My guess is we'll see a bunch of Twitter clients, Facebook apps, weather apps, friend feeds, photo sharing apps, etc. right out of the gate. In other words, widgets made big by Metro, and positioned as first class citizens. Productivity apps are going to be thin on the ground to non-existant, and with MS probably having no plans at all to offer a Metro Office.
Meanwhile, Apple isn't playing games with a "few lines of code" transition from OS X (although I'm sure it would be technically possible) because they know that real tablet apps have to be designed from the ground up. And they're clearly intent on pushing the boundaries of what you can do on a tablet, with each iteration of iWork for the iPad gaining ground on its desktop analog. They're doing that because the iPad doesn't have OS X to fall back on, and Apple doesn't think that that's where the puck will be. They think touch is the next mainstream computing paradigm, and they're not content to leave the heavy lifting to desktops. Clearly, MS is, and if they're wrong they've possibly made their last big mistake.
Your logic falls down with the comparison to iPad. Porting an OS X app to iPad would also be just changing a few lines if code if it wernt for the fact iOS doesn't have exactly the same api's. The vast majority of code in an app is in the business logic layer. The UI in comparison is a lot smaller hence the term "just a few lines of code".
Apps are still going to be desinged just as well as iPad apps. Competition in the app store forces that to happen.
Your logic falls down with the comparison to iPad. Porting an OS X app to iPad would also be just changing a few lines if code if it wernt for the fact iOS doesn't have exactly the same api's. The vast majority of code in an app is in the business logic layer. The UI in comparison is a lot smaller hence the term "just a few lines of code".
Apps are still going to be desinged just as well as iPad apps. Competition in the app store forces that to happen.
I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. It's not lines of code, it's design. The UI is everything for a touch app; it's vastly more important than reusing code from a business logic layer.
iOS has different api's than iOS because that's how they want it, they want a distinction. You don't hear Apple bragging about how easy it is to bump your OS X app over to iOS because it's not easy. Sure, you can reuse code, but rethinking a desktop app for touch is hard work.
MS has basically hung out a welcome sign: your half-assed ports welcome. Else why brag about the few lines of code? They're saying it's really easy, trivial really, to get your Windows desktop app ready for Metro. And I'm saying that merely functioning is the least of it, and by doing that you're inviting trouble.
I can't see where an app store is going to magically make all the apps great. The iPad has great apps because it's hugely popular and a lot of people are developing specifically for that platform, because Apple has enforced some discipline around how apps work, interact and look, and because Apple has led by example.
You can claim that Metro will suddenly have Windows like numbers and so be hugely popular as well, but that just means you have a lot of Windows developers being encouraged to move their apps over as quickly as possible. Which means a great many not very great apps. Just like always in Windows land, I guess.
And even though I expect there will be some great looking, well functioning apps for Metro to come, I suspect they'll largely be things like Twitter clients and other feed centric stuff, since that seems to be where MS thinks the strength of the environment lies (given all the examples so far). Who's going to write Garageband for Metro? Omnigraffle? Keynote? Does Metro even work with those kind of apps? I ask, because all they've shown are phone level stuff-- weather feeds, media lists, contacts and the like. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this design language lends itself to a productivity app-- but then again it seems like Microsoft's answer to that is that's what Windows is for.
MS has basically hung out a welcome sign: your half-assed ports welcome.
.
I didn't see it that way. In fact I think they went out of their way to say that is NOT how they want apps developed.
Certainly they have no control over the quality of apps that 3 rd party developers write but I'd say they are encouraging them to do things the Metro way.
With MS developing an app store, which AFAIK will be only way to get Metro apps, it'll be interesting how hard of a stance they take on apps that are not written the way they recommend.
Comments
1. Have a form factor similar to an iPad. No fan BS.
2. Quick sleep and wake
3. Allow for file management (unlike Apple)
4. Interface with their hugely popular XBox 360 (lots of potential here. Imagine the in-game possibilities.)
5. Use a completely different OS. A standalone mobile OS...one without registries.
You came in mid-conversation so you understandably don't understand what we were talking about.
I know exactly what you're all talking about. I'm just saying that Windows 8 proper looks like Chrome. They can't seem to do squat on their own.
And it is proper. People are going to panic when they see that overlay. They want their line at the bottom with the time on the right. They want their blue E in the top left. And they want their stretched, tiled, or centered picture that is too small for the screen to show up.
Who knows system requirements for the new Windows?
Same as Windows 7 but it uses considerably less resources.
MS could have success with a tablet if they did these things:
1. Have a form factor similar to an iPad. No fan BS.
2. Quick sleep and wake
3. Allow for file management (unlike Apple)
4. Interface with their hugely popular XBox 360 (lots of potential here. Imagine the in-game possibilities.)
5. Use a completely different OS. A standalone mobile OS...one without registries.
I know exactly what you're all talking about. I'm just saying that Windows 8 proper looks like Chrome. They can't seem to do squat on their own.
You've lost me. The Windows 8 "classic desktop" looks like Chrome what? Google's browser?
You've lost me. The Windows 8 "classic desktop" looks like Chrome what? Google's browser?
Yeah. What other Chrome is there in computing?
Just to add to my comments: read Dan Dilger on the matter
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...-taste-of-bob/
As perceptive an analysis as to why Windows 8 will fail as you will find.
Got about half way before I couldn't be bothered to read any more. The guy is clearly an idiot with statements like "Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant". Now Microsofts main market has always been the OS for enterprise and the Office package for enterprise and so far they haven't lost any sales in either. Xbox doesn't seem to be doing to badly either.
Also completely missed out by anyone is the fact millions and millions of people will use Windows 8 because they will have it at work. So when it comes to selling tablets, people may actually like it because they know it and they've technically already used it. Right now people looking at android tablets just go WTF, what does it do? Same reason nobody's going out buying a linux pc.
Anyway...
Been playing with Win8 on a non touch screen laptop and have to say it works well. The start screen does actually work as a start menu, I was a bit worried that it would be a bit of a downgrade from Win7's awesome start menu, but things like search are still there but only appear when you start typing. The best way to think of the Start screen is Launchpad merged with Dashboard and Spotlight.
So basically for tablets metro is a great UI for touch. For desktops and laptops, metro is a great start menu, giving you easy access to things like news, tweets and general online services without having to visit a website or open a program.
Some negatives though...
The lock screen is stupid. Having to slide a pic up on a desktop is awful, it should recognise you have a mouse and work on a click, apart from that the customisable notifications on the lock screen are a real plus.
The new ribbon in explorer is just ridiculous, luckily you can hide it, but really, WTF are all those buttons about!!!
Also not seeing how "a few lines of code" magically does all the work of converting a desktop UI metaphor to a useable tablet version. Apple has spend a lot of time and effort to write iPad versions of things like the iWork suite, and I'm pretty sure there's more to it than a few lines of code.
I've played with the demo, looked at the dev tools and read a bit of the documentation. Basically you need to write a few lines of code.
Obviously we're talking more than 5 or 6 when we say a few, and your not going to be making something like Photoshop touch friendly. But ultimately all your doing is re-positioning some stuff, making buttons bigger. Your business logic layers going to stay as it is.
With the HTML5 support built in as well, it also looks like without to much pain you could get that running as an app to.
Yeah. What other Chrome is there in computing?
Do you gain anything by acting like a jerk? I've gone out of my way to be helpful. I would think you could at least act like a decent human.
Chrome refers to pc widgets in general. They mention the term about 500 times in the Windows 8 keynotes. Also the classic desktop doesn't look like Googles Chrome browser, hence my request for clarification.
The lock screen is stupid. Having to slide a pic up on a desktop is awful, it should recognise you have a mouse and work on a click, apart from that the customisable notifications on the lock screen are a real plus.
I'd like to see how it feels with a multi-touch trackpad or multi-touch mouse.
Yeah. What other Chrome is there in computing?
You don't know about computing if you think "chrome" instantly means Google chrome
I have no idea if Win 8 tablets, or Windows 8 in general, will be successful. They are taking quite a gamble IMO. The traditional Windows desktop is taking a back seat to the Metro UI. On a positive note, they have an interesting and unique interface. They have a large developer base and frankly MS can write apps if they need to fill in gaps on the platform. But Win 7 phones running the Metro UI have not exactly lit the world on fire and so MS is betting the farm on a UI that has been for the most part rejected by consumers. I guess time will tell how well this eventually does. I think the marketing strategy may be brilliant. By having the MEtro UI the default UI of WIn 8, a lot of people who aren't familiar with the Metro UI are going to get exposed to it. They may like what they see and give Win 7 phones and Win 8 tablets consideration.
You don't know about computing if you think "chrome" instantly means Google chrome
I have never heard that once in any paper I have read, any website I have visited, any research I have done, nor any class I have taken.
It's just not the case.
I have never heard that once in any paper I have read, any website I have visited, any research I have done, nor any class I have taken.
It's just not the case.
I think its more "off the books", as it were. One or two references to it I've read in some past papers at University, caught my old HCI lecturer saying it from time to time and when developing for Adobe AIR you can choose to have a "custom chrome" (create your own window widgets) or use the system chrome (default OS skin).
In computing the "System Chrome" refers to the graphical user interface elements of an operating system or software application. So if I was to alter the system chrome of my application, what I would then effectively be doing is altering or replacing the widget designs.
What??? I have honestly never heard of that term before.
Just to add to my comments: read Dan Dilger on the matter
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...-taste-of-bob/
As perceptive an analysis as to why Windows 8 will fail as you will find.
Just to add to my comments: read Dan Dilger on the matter
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...-taste-of-bob/
As perceptive an analysis as to why Windows 8 will fail as you will find.
As perceptive as this one, where he predicts Android to crash and burn in 2010?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...crash-in-2010/
Or this one where he stated vehemently that Apple would never have a Verizon iPhone?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/0...zon/#more-3498
DED digs up a lot of good info, and certainly has some well-placed sources. Many of his comments are truly insightful and I honestly enjoy reading his articles, even if they're often a bit sensationalist. I would not depend on him for my sole impression on why something will fail or succeed though. His readers gravitate to him because he sees the tech-world thru Apple-green glasses. He's the ultimate "rabid-fanboy", or at least he plays one very well (I'm not convinced he really means all that he writes).
By no means is this a hit on DED. He is who he is, and has certainly seen success and attention by writing over-the-top commentary. The blogoshere is well-covered by timid writers and we need "DED's" to shake things up and stimulate discussion.
My hat's off to him. Just understand he doesn't even pretend to be objective.
I've played with the demo, looked at the dev tools and read a bit of the documentation. Basically you need to write a few lines of code.
Obviously we're talking more than 5 or 6 when we say a few, and your not going to be making something like Photoshop touch friendly. But ultimately all your doing is re-positioning some stuff, making buttons bigger. Your business logic layers going to stay as it is.
With the HTML5 support built in as well, it also looks like without to much pain you could get that running as an app to.
Well, see, I think that's a problem. As I've said, if your response to making an app "touch friendly" is to make buttons bigger and reposition some stuff then you've failed. You got a bunch of Windows apps with an awkward interface and little consistency between them, which is basically the model that MS has been failing at for years. You get Windows 7 Touch Edition with a nicer overlay.
Now, I've watched the talk on making good Metro apps, and MS is providing a template for new apps so they have consistency. But it doesn't look like that applies to ported apps, and guess which category is going to be bigger? Especially when MS is pitching how easy it is to just make some button bigger and whatnot?
Again, as I've been saying, this kind of thing, plus the fallback Windows environment, really encourages the path of least resistance. I can't see a great deal of incentive for developers to write great Metro apps, or to take care with moving big apps over, when they can default to Windows or just do a cursory touch job.
My guess is we'll see a bunch of Twitter clients, Facebook apps, weather apps, friend feeds, photo sharing apps, etc. right out of the gate. In other words, widgets made big by Metro, and positioned as first class citizens. Productivity apps are going to be thin on the ground to non-existant, and with MS probably having no plans at all to offer a Metro Office.
Meanwhile, Apple isn't playing games with a "few lines of code" transition from OS X (although I'm sure it would be technically possible) because they know that real tablet apps have to be designed from the ground up. And they're clearly intent on pushing the boundaries of what you can do on a tablet, with each iteration of iWork for the iPad gaining ground on its desktop analog. They're doing that because the iPad doesn't have OS X to fall back on, and Apple doesn't think that that's where the puck will be. They think touch is the next mainstream computing paradigm, and they're not content to leave the heavy lifting to desktops. Clearly, MS is, and if they're wrong they've possibly made their last big mistake.
Well, see, I think that's a problem. As I've said, if your response to making an app "touch friendly" is to make buttons bigger and reposition some stuff then you've failed. You got a bunch of Windows apps with an awkward interface and little consistency between them, which is basically the model that MS has been failing at for years. You get Windows 7 Touch Edition with a nicer overlay.
Now, I've watched the talk on making good Metro apps, and MS is providing a template for new apps so they have consistency. But it doesn't look like that applies to ported apps, and guess which category is going to be bigger? Especially when MS is pitching how easy it is to just make some button bigger and whatnot?
Again, as I've been saying, this kind of thing, plus the fallback Windows environment, really encourages the path of least resistance. I can't see a great deal of incentive for developers to write great Metro apps, or to take care with moving big apps over, when they can default to Windows or just do a cursory touch job.
My guess is we'll see a bunch of Twitter clients, Facebook apps, weather apps, friend feeds, photo sharing apps, etc. right out of the gate. In other words, widgets made big by Metro, and positioned as first class citizens. Productivity apps are going to be thin on the ground to non-existant, and with MS probably having no plans at all to offer a Metro Office.
Meanwhile, Apple isn't playing games with a "few lines of code" transition from OS X (although I'm sure it would be technically possible) because they know that real tablet apps have to be designed from the ground up. And they're clearly intent on pushing the boundaries of what you can do on a tablet, with each iteration of iWork for the iPad gaining ground on its desktop analog. They're doing that because the iPad doesn't have OS X to fall back on, and Apple doesn't think that that's where the puck will be. They think touch is the next mainstream computing paradigm, and they're not content to leave the heavy lifting to desktops. Clearly, MS is, and if they're wrong they've possibly made their last big mistake.
Your logic falls down with the comparison to iPad. Porting an OS X app to iPad would also be just changing a few lines if code if it wernt for the fact iOS doesn't have exactly the same api's. The vast majority of code in an app is in the business logic layer. The UI in comparison is a lot smaller hence the term "just a few lines of code".
Apps are still going to be desinged just as well as iPad apps. Competition in the app store forces that to happen.
Your logic falls down with the comparison to iPad. Porting an OS X app to iPad would also be just changing a few lines if code if it wernt for the fact iOS doesn't have exactly the same api's. The vast majority of code in an app is in the business logic layer. The UI in comparison is a lot smaller hence the term "just a few lines of code".
Apps are still going to be desinged just as well as iPad apps. Competition in the app store forces that to happen.
I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. It's not lines of code, it's design. The UI is everything for a touch app; it's vastly more important than reusing code from a business logic layer.
iOS has different api's than iOS because that's how they want it, they want a distinction. You don't hear Apple bragging about how easy it is to bump your OS X app over to iOS because it's not easy. Sure, you can reuse code, but rethinking a desktop app for touch is hard work.
MS has basically hung out a welcome sign: your half-assed ports welcome. Else why brag about the few lines of code? They're saying it's really easy, trivial really, to get your Windows desktop app ready for Metro. And I'm saying that merely functioning is the least of it, and by doing that you're inviting trouble.
I can't see where an app store is going to magically make all the apps great. The iPad has great apps because it's hugely popular and a lot of people are developing specifically for that platform, because Apple has enforced some discipline around how apps work, interact and look, and because Apple has led by example.
You can claim that Metro will suddenly have Windows like numbers and so be hugely popular as well, but that just means you have a lot of Windows developers being encouraged to move their apps over as quickly as possible. Which means a great many not very great apps. Just like always in Windows land, I guess.
And even though I expect there will be some great looking, well functioning apps for Metro to come, I suspect they'll largely be things like Twitter clients and other feed centric stuff, since that seems to be where MS thinks the strength of the environment lies (given all the examples so far). Who's going to write Garageband for Metro? Omnigraffle? Keynote? Does Metro even work with those kind of apps? I ask, because all they've shown are phone level stuff-- weather feeds, media lists, contacts and the like. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this design language lends itself to a productivity app-- but then again it seems like Microsoft's answer to that is that's what Windows is for.
MS has basically hung out a welcome sign: your half-assed ports welcome.
.
I didn't see it that way. In fact I think they went out of their way to say that is NOT how they want apps developed.
Certainly they have no control over the quality of apps that 3 rd party developers write but I'd say they are encouraging them to do things the Metro way.
With MS developing an app store, which AFAIK will be only way to get Metro apps, it'll be interesting how hard of a stance they take on apps that are not written the way they recommend.