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.
You can organize your screen layouts so that:
the apps you use are on contiguous screens
like apps (education, medical, etc.) are combined into folders
delete/demote apps you no longer or infrequently use
And the task bar keeps an historical record of the apps you are currently using.
You lose again, the iOS user can access more apps with less effort and less distraction.
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.
What Metro needs is "Whiter Whites!"
Seriously, there is an advantage with equally-sized icons -- that have badges, to denote activity, placed in fixed locations.
It appears that MS went a bit overboard with the colors and multi-sized tiles on Metro -- in the same way they did with bigger-than-life partial-words on the Zune...
The UI is supposed to be appealing, intuitive and utilitarian -- not just artsy-fartsy!
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.
This isn't about Metro. The summary in this article is poor (and the summary in the linked article isn't that great either, since they mis-represent something up top that they quote toward the bottom, but anyway...). In Newell's case, a lot of what he's criticizing is the direction Microsoft is wanting to take the Windows ecosystem, both with hardware and software. It's going from a free-for-all to a more closed system. He believes (probably rightly) the Valve will suffer as this process takes place, and he thinks other companies will suffer as well.
Told you all so in my previous posts. I installed it a few days ago just to do my eTax (Australia), then promptly nuked it. Total piece of nonsense. It's Windows XP with some half-baked square-interface-thing on top of it. Lipstick on a pig.
I call again for Bill Gates to remove himself from anything technology-related and focus only on charitable work.
Also, I propose the Xbox division be spun off to operate by itself and close everything else within 10 years.
Seriously, there is an advantage with equally-sized icons -- that have badges, to denote activity, placed in fixed locations.
It appears that MS went a bit overboard with the colors and multi-sized tiles on Metro -- in the same way they did with bigger-than-life partial-words on the Zune...
The UI is supposed to be appealing, intuitive and utilitarian -- not just artsy-fartsy!
It's not even artsy. It has elements of a "professional look" but is so jumbled it's worthless.
This isn't about Metro. The summary in this article is poor (and the summary in the linked article isn't that great either, since they mis-represent something up top that they quote toward the bottom, but anyway...). In Newell's case, a lot of what he's criticizing is the direction Microsoft is wanting to take the Windows ecosystem, both with hardware and software. It's going from a free-for-all to a more closed system. He believes (probably rightly) the Valve will suffer as this process takes place, and he thinks other companies will suffer as well.
I disagree! This article is about Windows 8 and the likelihood that it will be a catastrophe. Like it or not, Metro is a big part of Windows 8, as you have no choice whether it is there or not! As many have said, Metro may be the major deterrent to implementing Windows 8.
You can impute whatever motive or agenda you wish to Newell's statements -- but you cannot deny that Metro (with its advantages and warts) is part of Windows 8!
like apps (education, medical, etc.) are combined into folders
delete/demote apps you no longer or infrequently use
And the task bar keeps an historical record of the apps you are currently using.
You lose again, the iOS user can access more apps with less effort and less distraction.
You can group apps in Metro as well, shrink the screen if you want to see all the groups. You can even show all apps. Simple, efficient, easy to do. The side bar lets you easily flip through running apps. You can also run two apps at once on the screen, haven't seen iOS do that. Looks like you lose.
I disagree! This article is about Windows 8 and the likelihood that it will be a catastrophe. Like it or not, Metro is a big part of Windows 8, as you have no choice whether it is there or not! As many have said, Metro may be the major deterrent to implementing Windows 8.
You can impute whatever motive or agenda you wish to Newell's statements -- but you cannot deny that Metro (with its advantages and warts) is part of Windows 8!
Dick, the real question is, what has happened to Microsoft? How can they do something so bad, Vista, and then 7 which is XP+, then now 8? Windows 7 was alright, because it did 64bit decently. But Windows 8, along with RT and what not other rubbish... What happened man? This is definitely Microsoft's peak (or just off it, actually)... It's all downhill from here for the next 10-15 years?
You can group apps in Metro as well, shrink the screen if you want to see all the groups. You can even show all apps. Simple, efficient, easy to do. The side bar lets you easily flip through running apps. You can also run two apps at once on the screen, haven't seen iOS do that. Looks like you lose.
Unfortunately, most users will not care. They won't have time to group, show, whatever with the "apps" because Metro in Windows serves no basic purpose. You have the Start menu (which is now gone), Taskbar, and different windows. That's all you need. Sure, Metro is another layer that can enhance the basic windows functionality but for most people it's just one more chore to deal with, they already don't want to be using Windows anyway.
I think "catastrophe" is a bit of an overstatement. Microsoft deserves credit for being bold. But as some other posters already mentioned, it's as if they bolted two completely different UIs together (Windows Phone + Windows 7).
They can say "first!" but I think Apple will do the hard work of building one cohesive interface if/when iOS and OS X merge. Yes, I know Tim Cook has compared that to adding a toaster to a fridge. But they say a lot of stuff. The metaphor is a little frivolous anyway. A toaster and a fridge do opposite tasks; a mobile device and a personal computer have tons of overlap.
It's rather un-Apple to have 2 different operating systems, 2 different interfaces, and 2 different development environments. When people are adding physical keyboards to their iPads and instinctively swiping at the iMac's display, the distinction is a little bit artificial with sufficient technology and thoughtful design.
Unfortunately, most users will not care. They won't have time to group, show, whatever with the "apps" because Metro in Windows serves no basic purpose. You have the Start menu (which is now gone), Taskbar, and different windows. That's all you need. Sure, Metro is another layer that can enhance the basic windows functionality but for most people it's just one more chore to deal with, they already don't want to be using Windows anyway.
Sure they will. If they just get on their laptop to browse the web, they don't need the desktop. They can use the Metro version of IE. And realistically, the majority of people use computers just to go online anyway. And there will be tons of metro apps which will negate the need to go to the desktop. And holy crap, people might need to be taught a thing or two. Just like they had to be taught how to use other devices. No one uses the start menu anymore, they use desktop icons or since 7, they pin them.
Sure they will. If they just get on their laptop to browse the web, they don't need the desktop. They can use the Metro version of IE. And realistically, the majority of people use computers just to go online anyway. And there will be tons of metro apps which will negate the need to go to the desktop. And holy crap, people might need to be taught a thing or two. Just like they had to be taught how to use other devices. No one uses the start menu anymore, they use desktop icons or since 7, they pin them.
Or, they'll just buy an iPad and save a couple hundred dollars and have something useful.
Personally, I think Win 7 is the disaster. I have to use it at one of my clients and it's very problematic. Maybe it's configuration issues, but it drives me crazy. Whenever I have large documents in Visio or Word, the whole system hangs up every time it does an auto Save and it takes forever to do the autosave. If I delete files from my USB key, the filenames disappear right away as they always did, but if I delete files from the hard disk, the filenames stay up there until I refresh the listing. It takes forever to close a document, even after it was just saved. It also constantly "forgets" my mapped drives. No one of these things is a showstopper, but when you put all of these things together, it's a royal pain the butt and makes me NOT want to use that PC at all. I come home to my Mac and everything just works.
Having said that, unless Microsoft is changing the way they charge manufacturers to license the OS, no one is leaving the market solely because of Win 8. That's completely absurd. There will always be plenty of buyers for Windows-based PCs because you can buy one for $400 or even less. And the reality is that if what you mainly do is email, web surfing, some Facebook, Tweeting and watching YouTube videos, it's perfectly fine for those kinds of applications.
Personally, I think Win 7 is the disaster. I have to use it at one of my clients and it's very problematic. Maybe it's configuration issues, but it drives me crazy. Whenever I have large documents in Visio or Word, the whole system hangs up every time it does an auto Save and it takes forever to do the autosave. If I delete files from my USB key, the filenames disappear right away as they always did, but if I delete files from the hard disk, the filenames stay up there until I refresh the listing. It takes forever to close a document, even after it was just saved. It also constantly "forgets" my mapped drives. No one of these things is a showstopper, but when you put all of these things together, it's a royal pain the butt and makes me NOT want to use that PC at all. I come home to my Mac and everything just works.
Having said that, unless Microsoft is changing the way they charge manufacturers to license the OS, no one is leaving the market solely because of Win 8. That's completely absurd. There will always be plenty of buyers for Windows-based PCs because you can buy one for $400 or even less. And the reality is that if what you mainly do is email, web surfing, some Facebook, Tweeting and watching YouTube videos, it's perfectly fine for those kinds of applications.
The problem is that you can buy a "cool" iPad for the same price (or less)... to do those same things... Better!
I've heard good things about more GPU acceleration and Direct X 11.1.
But GOD I hope Microsoft kills that Metro interface! It's OK as a billboard on the XBox when you want to make it look like 4 apps and Netflix is a LOT OF COOL STUFF -- but it absolutely is total interface Hell if you actually have a lot of stuff to interact with. Where the heck do you LOOK for the vital info?
And the ribbon -- I still hate the ribbon with a passion that goes beyond any features an app might have.
My theory is that Metro and the Ribbon is to sell Windows 9 like "Classic Coke" -- people will be relieved that the abomination is gone.
I've heard good things about more GPU acceleration and Direct X 11.1.
This is the crux of the matter. Microsoft just doesn't get it. For most users, who the heck cares about GPU acceleration and Direct X 200 or whatever. As detailed above, most of the benefits of Metro and Windows 8 are... iPad like. Which runs on a minute amount of GPU and CPU power yet still delivers generally smooth and quick response.
MicroSoft have a history of supporting OSes for many years, XP is still supported. Conversely, Apple have a history on dumping on customers that do not upgrade their OSes on a regular basis. The exception being the Flashback update for Leopard which seems to have been the result of pressure from Leopard owners and social media.
Um what? Dumping on customers? How?
Leopard is now something like 15% of the entire Mac user base. Well over 80% are using something newer.
Um what? Dumping on customers? How?
Leopard is now something like 15% of the entire Mac user base. Well over 80% are using something newer.
I wonder what percentage of Windows machines are still using XP?
This chart from Wikipedia on OS installed base is including all OSes. It was just for Windows then XP would be much higher. Of course MS has to support it just as Apple supports XP with iTunes.
Note that this is only looking at a percentage, if we look at the more relevant stat of the number of installations then you need about 15x as many Mac OS version installations to equal Windows versions for the same percentage between OS types. Of course, Leopard will be a much lower percentage than XP so we're probably talking about at least a 60:1 difference in unit numbers.
As I was saying, Gabe Newell has an obvious agenda and is spreading FUD to try and have things his way. Obviously he is going to be upset that Apple and Microsoft are setting up app stores because Valve now makes (most likely the majority of its) money from the Steam Store. Official stores that sell games will likely hurt that business. Gabe is trying to convince Microsoft to open up Windows RT by scaring everyone senseless. No one even knows if Windows RT will be a success or not at this point. It could end up being completely irrelevant.
Of course he's got an agenda, but this particular point is only relevant for drawing in new customers. Steam has an integrated social platform with a loyal community, and Valve's games have brand recognition.
As far as Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace is concerned, the PC/Mac versions are only available on Steam. How many people are playing TF2 or L4D2 on the Xbox 360?
And the App Store is just a store. That is why I only use it to buy regular applications. When there's no SteamPlay, I bite the bullet and go into Boot Camp. That being said, I'm not poo-pooing competition, and I know that porting houses have issues with business models and contractual obligations that prevent them from wanting to adopt Steam to the fullest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
This is the crux of the matter. Microsoft just doesn't get it. For most users, who the heck cares about GPU acceleration and Direct X 200 or whatever. As detailed above, most of the benefits of Metro and Windows 8 are... iPad like. Which runs on a minute amount of GPU and CPU power yet still delivers generally smooth and quick response.
Game over Microsoft.
Who the heck cares about them? The PC-building enthusiast computing and gaming crowd, namely. Those who like to spend upwards of $200-$500 on Newegg for high-end dedicated graphics cards, and think that a large-scale adoption of "post-PC" means choking off the part vendors and forcing them to buy Xbox 720s. They might be right, if Nvidia's shared GPU experiments don't end up being viable.
Comments
Quote:
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. BTW...on the metro desktop you can start typing the name of your app and it instantly filters it out.
You can organize your screen layouts so that:
the apps you use are on contiguous screens
like apps (education, medical, etc.) are combined into folders
delete/demote apps you no longer or infrequently use
And the task bar keeps an historical record of the apps you are currently using.
You lose again, the iOS user can access more apps with less effort and less distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
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.
What Metro needs is "Whiter Whites!"
Seriously, there is an advantage with equally-sized icons -- that have badges, to denote activity, placed in fixed locations.
It appears that MS went a bit overboard with the colors and multi-sized tiles on Metro -- in the same way they did with bigger-than-life partial-words on the Zune...
The UI is supposed to be appealing, intuitive and utilitarian -- not just artsy-fartsy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
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.
This isn't about Metro. The summary in this article is poor (and the summary in the linked article isn't that great either, since they mis-represent something up top that they quote toward the bottom, but anyway...). In Newell's case, a lot of what he's criticizing is the direction Microsoft is wanting to take the Windows ecosystem, both with hardware and software. It's going from a free-for-all to a more closed system. He believes (probably rightly) the Valve will suffer as this process takes place, and he thinks other companies will suffer as well.
I call again for Bill Gates to remove himself from anything technology-related and focus only on charitable work.
Also, I propose the Xbox division be spun off to operate by itself and close everything else within 10 years.
It's not even artsy. It has elements of a "professional look" but is so jumbled it's worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
This isn't about Metro. The summary in this article is poor (and the summary in the linked article isn't that great either, since they mis-represent something up top that they quote toward the bottom, but anyway...). In Newell's case, a lot of what he's criticizing is the direction Microsoft is wanting to take the Windows ecosystem, both with hardware and software. It's going from a free-for-all to a more closed system. He believes (probably rightly) the Valve will suffer as this process takes place, and he thinks other companies will suffer as well.
I disagree! This article is about Windows 8 and the likelihood that it will be a catastrophe. Like it or not, Metro is a big part of Windows 8, as you have no choice whether it is there or not! As many have said, Metro may be the major deterrent to implementing Windows 8.
You can impute whatever motive or agenda you wish to Newell's statements -- but you cannot deny that Metro (with its advantages and warts) is part of Windows 8!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You can organize your screen layouts so that:
the apps you use are on contiguous screens
like apps (education, medical, etc.) are combined into folders
delete/demote apps you no longer or infrequently use
And the task bar keeps an historical record of the apps you are currently using.
You lose again, the iOS user can access more apps with less effort and less distraction.
You can group apps in Metro as well, shrink the screen if you want to see all the groups. You can even show all apps. Simple, efficient, easy to do. The side bar lets you easily flip through running apps. You can also run two apps at once on the screen, haven't seen iOS do that. Looks like you lose.
Dick, the real question is, what has happened to Microsoft? How can they do something so bad, Vista, and then 7 which is XP+, then now 8? Windows 7 was alright, because it did 64bit decently. But Windows 8, along with RT and what not other rubbish... What happened man? This is definitely Microsoft's peak (or just off it, actually)... It's all downhill from here for the next 10-15 years?
Unfortunately, most users will not care. They won't have time to group, show, whatever with the "apps" because Metro in Windows serves no basic purpose. You have the Start menu (which is now gone), Taskbar, and different windows. That's all you need. Sure, Metro is another layer that can enhance the basic windows functionality but for most people it's just one more chore to deal with, they already don't want to be using Windows anyway.
I think "catastrophe" is a bit of an overstatement. Microsoft deserves credit for being bold. But as some other posters already mentioned, it's as if they bolted two completely different UIs together (Windows Phone + Windows 7).
They can say "first!" but I think Apple will do the hard work of building one cohesive interface if/when iOS and OS X merge. Yes, I know Tim Cook has compared that to adding a toaster to a fridge. But they say a lot of stuff. The metaphor is a little frivolous anyway. A toaster and a fridge do opposite tasks; a mobile device and a personal computer have tons of overlap.
It's rather un-Apple to have 2 different operating systems, 2 different interfaces, and 2 different development environments. When people are adding physical keyboards to their iPads and instinctively swiping at the iMac's display, the distinction is a little bit artificial with sufficient technology and thoughtful design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Unfortunately, most users will not care. They won't have time to group, show, whatever with the "apps" because Metro in Windows serves no basic purpose. You have the Start menu (which is now gone), Taskbar, and different windows. That's all you need. Sure, Metro is another layer that can enhance the basic windows functionality but for most people it's just one more chore to deal with, they already don't want to be using Windows anyway.
Sure they will. If they just get on their laptop to browse the web, they don't need the desktop. They can use the Metro version of IE. And realistically, the majority of people use computers just to go online anyway. And there will be tons of metro apps which will negate the need to go to the desktop. And holy crap, people might need to be taught a thing or two. Just like they had to be taught how to use other devices. No one uses the start menu anymore, they use desktop icons or since 7, they pin them.
Windows 95 - bad
Windows 97 - OK
Windows ME - bad
Windows XP - OK
Windows Vista - bad
Windows 7 - OK
Windows 8 - must be bad to keep up their pattern.
Or, they'll just buy an iPad and save a couple hundred dollars and have something useful.
dictated on my iPad
Personally, I think Win 7 is the disaster. I have to use it at one of my clients and it's very problematic. Maybe it's configuration issues, but it drives me crazy. Whenever I have large documents in Visio or Word, the whole system hangs up every time it does an auto Save and it takes forever to do the autosave. If I delete files from my USB key, the filenames disappear right away as they always did, but if I delete files from the hard disk, the filenames stay up there until I refresh the listing. It takes forever to close a document, even after it was just saved. It also constantly "forgets" my mapped drives. No one of these things is a showstopper, but when you put all of these things together, it's a royal pain the butt and makes me NOT want to use that PC at all. I come home to my Mac and everything just works.
Having said that, unless Microsoft is changing the way they charge manufacturers to license the OS, no one is leaving the market solely because of Win 8. That's completely absurd. There will always be plenty of buyers for Windows-based PCs because you can buy one for $400 or even less. And the reality is that if what you mainly do is email, web surfing, some Facebook, Tweeting and watching YouTube videos, it's perfectly fine for those kinds of applications.
The problem is that you can buy a "cool" iPad for the same price (or less)... to do those same things... Better!
I've heard good things about more GPU acceleration and Direct X 11.1.
But GOD I hope Microsoft kills that Metro interface! It's OK as a billboard on the XBox when you want to make it look like 4 apps and Netflix is a LOT OF COOL STUFF -- but it absolutely is total interface Hell if you actually have a lot of stuff to interact with. Where the heck do you LOOK for the vital info?
And the ribbon -- I still hate the ribbon with a passion that goes beyond any features an app might have.
My theory is that Metro and the Ribbon is to sell Windows 9 like "Classic Coke" -- people will be relieved that the abomination is gone.
This is the crux of the matter. Microsoft just doesn't get it. For most users, who the heck cares about GPU acceleration and Direct X 200 or whatever. As detailed above, most of the benefits of Metro and Windows 8 are... iPad like. Which runs on a minute amount of GPU and CPU power yet still delivers generally smooth and quick response.
Game over Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
???
MicroSoft have a history of supporting OSes for many years, XP is still supported. Conversely, Apple have a history on dumping on customers that do not upgrade their OSes on a regular basis. The exception being the Flashback update for Leopard which seems to have been the result of pressure from Leopard owners and social media.
Um what? Dumping on customers? How?
Leopard is now something like 15% of the entire Mac user base. Well over 80% are using something newer.
I wonder what percentage of Windows machines are still using XP?
This chart from Wikipedia on OS installed base is including all OSes. It was just for Windows then XP would be much higher. Of course MS has to support it just as Apple supports XP with iTunes.
Note that this is only looking at a percentage, if we look at the more relevant stat of the number of installations then you need about 15x as many Mac OS version installations to equal Windows versions for the same percentage between OS types. Of course, Leopard will be a much lower percentage than XP so we're probably talking about at least a 60:1 difference in unit numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
As I was saying, Gabe Newell has an obvious agenda and is spreading FUD to try and have things his way. Obviously he is going to be upset that Apple and Microsoft are setting up app stores because Valve now makes (most likely the majority of its) money from the Steam Store. Official stores that sell games will likely hurt that business. Gabe is trying to convince Microsoft to open up Windows RT by scaring everyone senseless. No one even knows if Windows RT will be a success or not at this point. It could end up being completely irrelevant.
Of course he's got an agenda, but this particular point is only relevant for drawing in new customers. Steam has an integrated social platform with a loyal community, and Valve's games have brand recognition.
As far as Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace is concerned, the PC/Mac versions are only available on Steam. How many people are playing TF2 or L4D2 on the Xbox 360?
And the App Store is just a store. That is why I only use it to buy regular applications. When there's no SteamPlay, I bite the bullet and go into Boot Camp. That being said, I'm not poo-pooing competition, and I know that porting houses have issues with business models and contractual obligations that prevent them from wanting to adopt Steam to the fullest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
This is the crux of the matter. Microsoft just doesn't get it. For most users, who the heck cares about GPU acceleration and Direct X 200 or whatever. As detailed above, most of the benefits of Metro and Windows 8 are... iPad like. Which runs on a minute amount of GPU and CPU power yet still delivers generally smooth and quick response.
Game over Microsoft.
Who the heck cares about them? The PC-building enthusiast computing and gaming crowd, namely. Those who like to spend upwards of $200-$500 on Newegg for high-end dedicated graphics cards, and think that a large-scale adoption of "post-PC" means choking off the part vendors and forcing them to buy Xbox 720s. They might be right, if Nvidia's shared GPU experiments don't end up being viable.