I don't agree, although I'd hate to use this forum to argue about the merits of a 7 year old version of Windows. At its guts, Vista was still NT (as was XP before it). It came with a shiney new coat (Aero) but there was horrible GUI inconsistencies, poor performance and the actual interface didn't really change. Some windows were glass, others were still grey for example.
There were some improvements of course, 64-bit finally worked properly (although unlike on Mac, it was either/or, it couldn't run in both modes). But even so, I haven't even gone into things like the ludicrous number of versions, pricing, resource requirements, application and driver incompatibility etc. When Apple dumps old technology, it's relatively painless because its users are not so tied to legacy, but when MS does it. Ouch. MS is bound by its own history and 'non-standards', which is pretty funny when you think about it.
Wrong, the 64-bit OS runs both 64 and 32 bit apps. It has no 16bit subsystem. The 32bit OS will run 32 and 16 bit apps.
Indeed , in the case of professional world, the prescriber (the IT Department) is not the actual user (or just a tiny part of it).
Indeed again, an incredibly high number of Windows users quit accessing to Internet, just because .. it's too much trouble , too risky, and the destiny of their PCs is to die "frozen".
Companies replace their PCs when the cost of maintaining them to life exceeds the replacement cost. Consumer users replace them when they are fed up of doing the continuous clean up work (defragmenting, chasing viruses, eliminating incompatible applications , etc ...) it requires.
When Mac users replace their Mac, it is because they cannot resist to the appeal of a new one, but the old one is still functional. They keep it, most of the time, but if not, they can sell it easily on the second hand market.
What is to be pointed out, I think, is that Apple has raised the OS capabilities to an unprecedent level. It is not just discussing how easy it is to access to applications, data (although it does matter), but it is about providing the user multiple means of communication (keyboard (possibly virtual), mouse (idem), but also voice input, gestures ...
Not to mention, also, the Cloud capabilities, which enterprises will of course ban, but which be change the average consumer life.
Microsoft stuff, from this standpoint, will appear as totally obsolete.
Admitedly, this might not be a strong selling point for the prescribers in the professional world, but for the consumers, it will be a different story ...
The majority of IT departments have already moved to 7 or are prepping to do so, and many are already looking at 8. Support for XP sunsets in less than 2 years, April 2014.
The situation is even worse than you describe. Windows RT will not "run windows and the core MS stuff." Windows RT will only run a "mock" desktop, and only the MS Office apps (ported to ARM versions), which will come pre-installed and you won't be able to mess with them. No third party software will be allowed at all on the desktop (Metro apps will be allowed if they are installed from MS's store only).
That's because RT is designed to be essentially a Metro interface only version.
Completely different design philosophies. Apple tends to get their OSs right and price them very attractively, so the majority of people upgrade quickly. In addition, they have not had OSs so bad that they became a laughing stock as millions of people downgraded (*cough* Vista *cough*). Microsoft HAD to support Windows XP to avoid outright rebellion over how bad Vista was.
After a certain period of time, there's little value in upgrading old OSs. People have stable configurations and don't mess with them, so the need is minimal. Furthermore, the desire to support many, many years of obsolete OSs creates its own problems - bloat and high tech support costs.
Yes, Apple also releases buggy OS's and apps. Look how often and quickly they patch them. 10.7.1 came out what...a week after release? Poor QoS, and rather pathetic when you consider the small number of devices it runs on.
I think this is one of the biggest aspects of Metro that hasn't really been explored yet. There are so few people actually using Windows Phone 7 and Metro that no one could possibly have a clear idea yet of how popular it is or how well it works. In the absence of such concrete facts, all indications in the abstract are that it won't be very useful or popular at all.
The only people I know who bought Windows Phones either hated them, or couldn't figure them out and eventually took them back to the store. The only other evidence we have is that Metro "Live Tiles" are basically identical to "widgets" or "gadgets" which have been put into various desktop OS's over the years.
In almost every case, widgets are unpopular with users and rarely used beyond the initial excitement phase.
So what does that tell you about how popular "Metro" will be?
It's clear what will happen here.
Business: Enterprise and business customers don't need Metro and it adds nothing to the user experience in those situations. When you are a worker in a call centre sitting in a sea of Windows PC's, you don't need Facebook updates or any of that social crap. If you're an executive, you already have this stuff on your phone and similarly don't really need it. Business IT will either not install Windows 8 at all or will install it with Metro removed.
Consumer: Consumers will be confused as the main reason they keep sticking to Windows is that it's familiar and thy know how to make it work. A HUGE amount of people won't be able to make Metro even work or understand it. They will get frustrated, and then they will search the net for "give me my start menu back" and find dozens of ways to make that happen. Then they won't see Metro ever again.
After touting initial "sales" numbers that make it seem popular, about half way through the year it will become apparent even to idiots that no one is using it and the few that are have disabled the new features. With the next version of Windows, Microsoft will admit that they put peanut butter and chocolate in the same bar and decide to separate them again. They will announce that they're "refocussing on the Enterprise" and splitting off Metro to become a mobile only OS. The schizophrenic nature of Windows 8 will be pointed to as the reason that Metro didn't work and that Metro will be much more popular in isolation. There will be lots of "this time for sure" comments.
This will also fail and be the very *last* consumer oriented Windows release.
Wow you live under a rock somewhere. Your knowledge is so skewered.
The majority of IT departments have already moved to 7 or are prepping to do so, and many are already looking at 8. Support for XP sunsets in less than 2 years, April 2014.
I agree with you. Windows 7 is a good OS. However, "looking at Windows 8" is being done very cautiously. The IT people have really just made the conversion to 7 and there is little to compel anyone to spend the money to update to 8. So, the IT people are "looking at 8" the way a person eyes roadkill stuck to your bumper.
That's because RT is designed to be essentially a Metro interface only version.
He's well aware of the why, but you're ignoring his point and how using the same marketing name for something inherently unique will cause confusion and dissatisfaction from the user's PoV. Let's remember that Apple took Mac OS X and stripped it down to Darwin plus core frameworks and then built it back from scratch to be idealized for the iPhone. They called it OS X iPhone and iPhone OS before eventually renaming it iOS. They didn't call it Mac OS X for a reason. They didn't refer to every device they made as a type of Mac running Mac OS. MS does a great job in following Apple's lead over a half a decade later (right on schedule) but it's not a smart marketing move and it simply doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have any windows. It is so radically different in the UI, the way it works, the way you get apps, and what apps can run they ey really should have called it Metro OS. It would have been fresh, it would have been exciting, it would seemed like MS was finally able to focus properly.
I agree with you. Windows 7 is a good OS. However, "looking at Windows 8" is being done very cautiously. The IT people have really just made the conversion to 7 and there is little to compel anyone to spend the money to update to 8. So, the IT people are "looking at 8" the way a person eyes roadkill stuck to your bumper.
They do that with every OS release. They use mission critical apps and if a new OS breaks that app, it's a deal breaker.
I've heard that comment a number of times from different sources but nobody ever goes on to say why it's so bad. Not sure if it's just MS bashing or if Metro really is that bad. Perhaps someone would care to explain what's wrong with the Metro interface. I use Mac and PC with my work so I'm genuinely interested to know.
It's a shame there isn't a 15" iPad or a Mac laptop for £500 - Apple would probably clean up and double their market share if Metro is so bad.
Metro is just incredibly aquard on a desktop and worce with a decent sized screen. Even after you are accustomed to it it is just an annoying waste of time. I don't think it would be an issue if you could accomplish everything in metro but you can't and the mandatory switch back and forth is jarring and interrupts your workflow.
Anything that doesn't make the PC easer and more efficient to use will have a backlash. This is a usability nightmare the only real excuse that I can think of is to force people to use the windows version of the App store which is OK except for the approval process that can be incredibly restrictive and costly.
Ahh... but the iOS user can see more of what's going on with a single glance and/or page flip:
20 apps -- iPhone
25 apps -- aPad
28 apps -- Mac
There is also the matter of using white space to separate items and focus interest.
So, while you are correct that two can play -- only one can win!
Because you need to flip through all those apps that you never use? Market research shows that after several months, 90+% of the apps people download no longer get any use. BTW...on the metro desktop you can start typing the name of your app and it instantly filters it out.
He's well aware of the why, but you're ignoring his point and how using the same marketing name for something inherently unique will cause confusion and dissatisfaction from the user's PoV. Let's remember that Apple took Mac OS X and stripped it down to Darwin plus core frameworks and then built it back from scratch to be idealized for the iPhone. They called it OS X iPhone and iPhone OS before eventually renaming it iOS. They didn't call it Mac OS X for a reason. They didn't refer to every device they made as a type of Mac running Mac OS. MS does a great job in following Apple's lead over a half a decade later (right on schedule) but it's not a smart marketing move and it simply doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have any windows. It is so radically different in the UI, the way it works, the way you get apps, and what apps can run they ey really should have called it Metro OS. It would have been fresh, it would have been exciting, it would seemed like MS was finally able to focus properly.
Hah!
I hadn't realized the inherent misnomer and marketing inconsistency!
Maybe the MS single theme should be "Windows Everywhere"and"Windows Nowhere".
To be fair, I believe that Windows Nowhere has the "Snap Window" feature borrowed from the carcus that was Courier. I think that it is is a good feature, but the developers will have to reimplement their apps to work with "Snap Window"
Because you need to flip through all those apps that you never use? Market research shows that after several months, 90+% of the apps people download no longer get any use.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to delete applications you didn't use? That'd be great. But sadly, such a feature has never been created in the history of computing.
The history. Of computing.
Also, I'd like to see this 'research'.
BTW...on the metro desktop you can start typing the name of your app and it instantly filters it out.
Ooh, guess what you can do on Launchpad. Just… just guess. This… you'll never get it.
The tile colors seem to be just random, so one needs to read each tile to discover what new information is on each. I'd think having the tiles become, say, red or yellow, when there has been a change of information posed on the tile face. That way, at least, the user would know which tiles needed to be read.
All that said, the tiles are really a jumble of chaotic colors, info, and icons that are not appealing to my eye and compete for attention like laundry detergent boxes in a supermarket.
I'll try to answer this with my basic understanding of Win 8 (which again, is basic, but also a bit more than the average consumer.)
As far as Metro goes - it's basically a large skin on top of Windows. The traditional Windows environment still exists, programs will still run, but the system boots in this tiled, stripped down quick launch screen. (Imagine your mac boots iOS - simple, functional, but limited, and OSX exists below it) However MS is building stripped down apps specifically for metro - and encouraging developers to do the same - what this means is basically much stricter style guidelines, which is not necessarily a benefit of programs that have been optimized for regular desktop use over the past 15 years. Metro is perhaps cleaner and sleek, but it seems like form over function to me - and I don't see many big developers actually building 'metro' style apps. For example - iTunes - No way will Apple completely redesign iTunes just so it fits into Windows' new theme. Which means when people want to use real applications, they will have to switch back to regular windows mode - making Metro more of an annoyance. I don't think people in general will want to use it.
It gets slightly more complicated with Windows 8 RT, which is built specifically for tablets running ARM architecture (to my knowledge, mobile and power optimized.) Windows and the core MS stuff will run on this, but I'm not sure other applications from 3rd party developers will unless they are specifically optimized. (Again, could be wrong, but it's like how a Windows program won't run on OSX or Linux). The thing is, Windows RT will look identical to Windows, it's called Windows, people will think it's Windows, but it wont be able to run many traditional Windows applications. These tablets may have better battery life and built on hardware the mobile space needs, they may be a good idea in theory to develop a mobile app space - but it seems like running 'Windows' on it will be a confusing step back or not a bold enough step forward.
Thanks. So the Metro interface only really applies to the Windows Desktop. You can still press Start > Programs > Whatever to access your programs unless the Program concerned creates a Tile to go onto the Metro Home Screen. I can see the benefits of that on a tablet or a phone where these Tiles dynamically update with new information like number of unread emails or number of friends currently logged in Messenger, but on a desktop I can see how it would simply become distracting.
I really don't get the whole Windows RT thing. That has "confusion" stamped all over it. I think they will end taking a big hit on that.
The big question for me is will this make the whole thing more or less stable. I use Vista at the moment and every time they issue new security updates it takes longer to boot up and close down, locks up more often and crashes more often. Only Microsoft could issue security updates that make your computer worse than before. That's why I switched to Mac in the first place but I still need a mixed PC/Mac environment to run my business.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
I don't agree, although I'd hate to use this forum to argue about the merits of a 7 year old version of Windows. At its guts, Vista was still NT (as was XP before it). It came with a shiney new coat (Aero) but there was horrible GUI inconsistencies, poor performance and the actual interface didn't really change. Some windows were glass, others were still grey for example.
There were some improvements of course, 64-bit finally worked properly (although unlike on Mac, it was either/or, it couldn't run in both modes). But even so, I haven't even gone into things like the ludicrous number of versions, pricing, resource requirements, application and driver incompatibility etc. When Apple dumps old technology, it's relatively painless because its users are not so tied to legacy, but when MS does it. Ouch. MS is bound by its own history and 'non-standards', which is pretty funny when you think about it.
Wrong, the 64-bit OS runs both 64 and 32 bit apps. It has no 16bit subsystem. The 32bit OS will run 32 and 16 bit apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
Indeed , in the case of professional world, the prescriber (the IT Department) is not the actual user (or just a tiny part of it).
Indeed again, an incredibly high number of Windows users quit accessing to Internet, just because .. it's too much trouble , too risky, and the destiny of their PCs is to die "frozen".
Companies replace their PCs when the cost of maintaining them to life exceeds the replacement cost. Consumer users replace them when they are fed up of doing the continuous clean up work (defragmenting, chasing viruses, eliminating incompatible applications , etc ...) it requires.
When Mac users replace their Mac, it is because they cannot resist to the appeal of a new one, but the old one is still functional. They keep it, most of the time, but if not, they can sell it easily on the second hand market.
What is to be pointed out, I think, is that Apple has raised the OS capabilities to an unprecedent level. It is not just discussing how easy it is to access to applications, data (although it does matter), but it is about providing the user multiple means of communication (keyboard (possibly virtual), mouse (idem), but also voice input, gestures ...
Not to mention, also, the Cloud capabilities, which enterprises will of course ban, but which be change the average consumer life.
Microsoft stuff, from this standpoint, will appear as totally obsolete.
Admitedly, this might not be a strong selling point for the prescribers in the professional world, but for the consumers, it will be a different story ...
The majority of IT departments have already moved to 7 or are prepping to do so, and many are already looking at 8. Support for XP sunsets in less than 2 years, April 2014.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The situation is even worse than you describe. Windows RT will not "run windows and the core MS stuff." Windows RT will only run a "mock" desktop, and only the MS Office apps (ported to ARM versions), which will come pre-installed and you won't be able to mess with them. No third party software will be allowed at all on the desktop (Metro apps will be allowed if they are installed from MS's store only).
That's because RT is designed to be essentially a Metro interface only version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Oh, my....
I wonder if MS will send out a new "coaster" every week -- with 10,000 free hours...
I have the complete AOL set -- some in their original packaging
Like iOS with all it's little chiclet apps dumped all over the screen. Two can play at that game.
I've asked this question several times in different threads:
Can anyone link to information describing what percentage of users of Windows are business versus personal?
Dictated on my iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Completely different design philosophies. Apple tends to get their OSs right and price them very attractively, so the majority of people upgrade quickly. In addition, they have not had OSs so bad that they became a laughing stock as millions of people downgraded (*cough* Vista *cough*). Microsoft HAD to support Windows XP to avoid outright rebellion over how bad Vista was.
After a certain period of time, there's little value in upgrading old OSs. People have stable configurations and don't mess with them, so the need is minimal. Furthermore, the desire to support many, many years of obsolete OSs creates its own problems - bloat and high tech support costs.
Yes, Apple also releases buggy OS's and apps. Look how often and quickly they patch them. 10.7.1 came out what...a week after release? Poor QoS, and rather pathetic when you consider the small number of devices it runs on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think this is one of the biggest aspects of Metro that hasn't really been explored yet. There are so few people actually using Windows Phone 7 and Metro that no one could possibly have a clear idea yet of how popular it is or how well it works. In the absence of such concrete facts, all indications in the abstract are that it won't be very useful or popular at all.
The only people I know who bought Windows Phones either hated them, or couldn't figure them out and eventually took them back to the store. The only other evidence we have is that Metro "Live Tiles" are basically identical to "widgets" or "gadgets" which have been put into various desktop OS's over the years.
In almost every case, widgets are unpopular with users and rarely used beyond the initial excitement phase.
So what does that tell you about how popular "Metro" will be?
It's clear what will happen here.
Business: Enterprise and business customers don't need Metro and it adds nothing to the user experience in those situations. When you are a worker in a call centre sitting in a sea of Windows PC's, you don't need Facebook updates or any of that social crap. If you're an executive, you already have this stuff on your phone and similarly don't really need it. Business IT will either not install Windows 8 at all or will install it with Metro removed.
Consumer: Consumers will be confused as the main reason they keep sticking to Windows is that it's familiar and thy know how to make it work. A HUGE amount of people won't be able to make Metro even work or understand it. They will get frustrated, and then they will search the net for "give me my start menu back" and find dozens of ways to make that happen. Then they won't see Metro ever again.
After touting initial "sales" numbers that make it seem popular, about half way through the year it will become apparent even to idiots that no one is using it and the few that are have disabled the new features. With the next version of Windows, Microsoft will admit that they put peanut butter and chocolate in the same bar and decide to separate them again. They will announce that they're "refocussing on the Enterprise" and splitting off Metro to become a mobile only OS. The schizophrenic nature of Windows 8 will be pointed to as the reason that Metro didn't work and that Metro will be much more popular in isolation. There will be lots of "this time for sure" comments.
This will also fail and be the very *last* consumer oriented Windows release.
Wow you live under a rock somewhere. Your knowledge is so skewered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITCrowd
The majority of IT departments have already moved to 7 or are prepping to do so, and many are already looking at 8. Support for XP sunsets in less than 2 years, April 2014.
I agree with you. Windows 7 is a good OS. However, "looking at Windows 8" is being done very cautiously. The IT people have really just made the conversion to 7 and there is little to compel anyone to spend the money to update to 8. So, the IT people are "looking at 8" the way a person eyes roadkill stuck to your bumper.
He's well aware of the why, but you're ignoring his point and how using the same marketing name for something inherently unique will cause confusion and dissatisfaction from the user's PoV. Let's remember that Apple took Mac OS X and stripped it down to Darwin plus core frameworks and then built it back from scratch to be idealized for the iPhone. They called it OS X iPhone and iPhone OS before eventually renaming it iOS. They didn't call it Mac OS X for a reason. They didn't refer to every device they made as a type of Mac running Mac OS. MS does a great job in following Apple's lead over a half a decade later (right on schedule) but it's not a smart marketing move and it simply doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have any windows. It is so radically different in the UI, the way it works, the way you get apps, and what apps can run they ey really should have called it Metro OS. It would have been fresh, it would have been exciting, it would seemed like MS was finally able to focus properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITCrowd
Like iOS with all it's little chiclet apps dumped all over the screen. Two can play at that game.
Ahh... but the iOS user can see more of what's going on with a single glance and/or page flip:
20 apps -- iPhone
25 apps -- aPad
35 apps -- Mac
There is also the matter of using white space to separate items and focus interest.
So, while you are correct that two can play -- only one can win!
Valve's Gabe Newell predicts Windows 8 will be a 'catastrophe'
Speaking at the Casual Connect videogame conference in Seattle, Wash., Valve Managing Director Gabe Newel... bla bla bla...
There's noting like going into Microsoft's back yard and bitch slapping Ballmer on his home turf.
Catastrophe is such a big word I wonder if monkey man knows he's been dissed...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I agree with you. Windows 7 is a good OS. However, "looking at Windows 8" is being done very cautiously. The IT people have really just made the conversion to 7 and there is little to compel anyone to spend the money to update to 8. So, the IT people are "looking at 8" the way a person eyes roadkill stuck to your bumper.
They do that with every OS release. They use mission critical apps and if a new OS breaks that app, it's a deal breaker.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Ahh... but the iOS user can see more of what's going on with a single glance and/or page flip:
20 apps -- iPhone
25 apps -- iPad
28 apps -- Mac
Are you talking about Launchpad? It's 35 applications for me.
Metro is just incredibly aquard on a desktop and worce with a decent sized screen. Even after you are accustomed to it it is just an annoying waste of time. I don't think it would be an issue if you could accomplish everything in metro but you can't and the mandatory switch back and forth is jarring and interrupts your workflow.
Anything that doesn't make the PC easer and more efficient to use will have a backlash. This is a usability nightmare the only real excuse that I can think of is to force people to use the windows version of the App store which is OK except for the approval process that can be incredibly restrictive and costly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Ahh... but the iOS user can see more of what's going on with a single glance and/or page flip:
20 apps -- iPhone
25 apps -- aPad
28 apps -- Mac
There is also the matter of using white space to separate items and focus interest.
So, while you are correct that two can play -- only one can win!
Because you need to flip through all those apps that you never use? Market research shows that after several months, 90+% of the apps people download no longer get any use. BTW...on the metro desktop you can start typing the name of your app and it instantly filters it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He's well aware of the why, but you're ignoring his point and how using the same marketing name for something inherently unique will cause confusion and dissatisfaction from the user's PoV. Let's remember that Apple took Mac OS X and stripped it down to Darwin plus core frameworks and then built it back from scratch to be idealized for the iPhone. They called it OS X iPhone and iPhone OS before eventually renaming it iOS. They didn't call it Mac OS X for a reason. They didn't refer to every device they made as a type of Mac running Mac OS. MS does a great job in following Apple's lead over a half a decade later (right on schedule) but it's not a smart marketing move and it simply doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have any windows. It is so radically different in the UI, the way it works, the way you get apps, and what apps can run they ey really should have called it Metro OS. It would have been fresh, it would have been exciting, it would seemed like MS was finally able to focus properly.
Hah!
I hadn't realized the inherent misnomer and marketing inconsistency!
Maybe the MS single theme should be "Windows Everywhere" and "Windows Nowhere".
To be fair, I believe that Windows Nowhere has the "Snap Window" feature borrowed from the carcus that was Courier. I think that it is is a good feature, but the developers will have to reimplement their apps to work with "Snap Window"
Originally Posted by ITCrowd
Because you need to flip through all those apps that you never use? Market research shows that after several months, 90+% of the apps people download no longer get any use.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to delete applications you didn't use? That'd be great. But sadly, such a feature has never been created in the history of computing.
The history. Of computing.
Also, I'd like to see this 'research'.
BTW...on the metro desktop you can start typing the name of your app and it instantly filters it out.
Ooh, guess what you can do on Launchpad. Just… just guess. This… you'll never get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Are you talking about Launchpad? It's 35 applications for me.
Oops... fixed in OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runner7775
The tile colors seem to be just random, so one needs to read each tile to discover what new information is on each. I'd think having the tiles become, say, red or yellow, when there has been a change of information posed on the tile face. That way, at least, the user would know which tiles needed to be read.
All that said, the tiles are really a jumble of chaotic colors, info, and icons that are not appealing to my eye and compete for attention like laundry detergent boxes in a supermarket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by september11th
I'll try to answer this with my basic understanding of Win 8 (which again, is basic, but also a bit more than the average consumer.)
As far as Metro goes - it's basically a large skin on top of Windows. The traditional Windows environment still exists, programs will still run, but the system boots in this tiled, stripped down quick launch screen. (Imagine your mac boots iOS - simple, functional, but limited, and OSX exists below it) However MS is building stripped down apps specifically for metro - and encouraging developers to do the same - what this means is basically much stricter style guidelines, which is not necessarily a benefit of programs that have been optimized for regular desktop use over the past 15 years. Metro is perhaps cleaner and sleek, but it seems like form over function to me - and I don't see many big developers actually building 'metro' style apps. For example - iTunes - No way will Apple completely redesign iTunes just so it fits into Windows' new theme. Which means when people want to use real applications, they will have to switch back to regular windows mode - making Metro more of an annoyance. I don't think people in general will want to use it.
It gets slightly more complicated with Windows 8 RT, which is built specifically for tablets running ARM architecture (to my knowledge, mobile and power optimized.) Windows and the core MS stuff will run on this, but I'm not sure other applications from 3rd party developers will unless they are specifically optimized. (Again, could be wrong, but it's like how a Windows program won't run on OSX or Linux). The thing is, Windows RT will look identical to Windows, it's called Windows, people will think it's Windows, but it wont be able to run many traditional Windows applications. These tablets may have better battery life and built on hardware the mobile space needs, they may be a good idea in theory to develop a mobile app space - but it seems like running 'Windows' on it will be a confusing step back or not a bold enough step forward.
Thanks. So the Metro interface only really applies to the Windows Desktop. You can still press Start > Programs > Whatever to access your programs unless the Program concerned creates a Tile to go onto the Metro Home Screen. I can see the benefits of that on a tablet or a phone where these Tiles dynamically update with new information like number of unread emails or number of friends currently logged in Messenger, but on a desktop I can see how it would simply become distracting.
I really don't get the whole Windows RT thing. That has "confusion" stamped all over it. I think they will end taking a big hit on that.
The big question for me is will this make the whole thing more or less stable. I use Vista at the moment and every time they issue new security updates it takes longer to boot up and close down, locks up more often and crashes more often. Only Microsoft could issue security updates that make your computer worse than before. That's why I switched to Mac in the first place but I still need a mixed PC/Mac environment to run my business.
Oh well such is life.