backtop


Print 127 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Jun 29 at 10:40 AM

Change may be less extreme than some expected, but may leave some unhappy campers

You don't put desktop in the corner.

That sentiment is at the heart of much of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) faithful’s increasing frustration with Windows 8.  Loyal Windows blogger Paul Thurrott went as far as to compare it to the much loathed Windows ME ("Millennium Edition").  Others have been more charitable, praising its strong touch support.  And manufacturers seem to be on board with Microsoft's message, at least, showing of a slew of hybrid notebooks and tablets [1][2][3].

When word leaked that Microsoft had snipped out the code that allowed the Start Menu to be re-enabled on the desktop via third-party hacks, many commenters flipped out and let their rage be known.  They weren't much happier when they heard that the Aero UI theme found in Windows Vista and Windows 7 desktops would be replaced by a Metro UI alternative.  (The current publicly available Release Preview retains the Aero UI theme.)

So how bad (or good) is the new Metro desktop makeover? Judge for yourself from these screenshots from WinUnleaked.

Windows 8 Metro Desktop

Windows 8 Metro UI Windows 8 Metro Desktop Windows 8 Metro Desktop Windows 8 Metro Desktop

Windows 8 Metro Desktop
(Click any image to enlarge) [Images Source: WindowsUnleaked]

While there's no real reason to doubt the authenticity of these shots, bear in mind that the leaked OS is a pre-RTM (release to manufacturing/marketing) build.  Even the poster "canouna" warns, "Please keep in mind this is not the FINAL theme."

Some people have already (for better or worse) drawn comparisons between the Metro theme and the Windows XP Water Color theme:

XP Water Color
 [Image Source: "The Rock"/WindowsUnleaked]

Of course, the bad news is that Microsoft appears to be locking the Desktop to Metro UI, though there's faint hope that it might leave in legacy code allowing transparency to be re-enabled.  Desktop Windows Manager (DWM) is still running on the test builds, but there's no telling if it will contain the Aero code any more.  Microsoft has stated before that Aero wastes battery life and consumes extra processing power versus the cleaner Metro UI, so that may be justification in Microsoft's mind for the switch.

As far as further changes to the desktop, the top two rumors are that Microsoft may complete the Metro makeover with new Metro-styled icons.  A second rumor is that the Office-esque "Ribbon" will be added to more of the menus, as this was the case in certain early builds.

So what do you think?  Is the Metro desktop in its current form a stud or a dud?

Source: WindowsUnleaked



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By fleshconsumed on 6/14/2012 1:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't really care for Aero. All that transparency is just plain annoying because it makes it so much more difficult to see which one of your windows is the active one. For all of my Windows 7 installations I still use Aero, as opposed to Basic Theme, however, I set window color to be as solidly untransparently blue as possible. And even that doesn't really help as much as you'd expect because for some reason different microsoft applications right now use different "inactive" colors, which makes it so much more fun to hunt for active window. If Win8 can bring it all back under control with a unified "windows theme" that will actually have consistent colors across all applications, I would welcome that change in a heartbeat.

My biggest gripe about Win8 is the lack of start button on the desktop though. Sure, you can have a third party replacement for the start button, but not to include it in the default distribution is the stupidest decision MS has made in a while when it comes to desktop OS. Without start button on the desktop there are only 3 ways to launch a program from desktop: 1) pin it to the taskbar, 2) create a shortcut on the desktop, or 3) start explorer, manually browse to the folder and launch executable. Pinning most used programs to taskbar will solve most of the problems, but if for some reason you don't have a shortcut handy, you have to go back to the metro UI, and start your program from there. It's really backward when you have to switch to Metro UI just to launch a program on your desktop, really backward, and I'm really surprised no one inside Microsoft has stopped and paused to think about it.

I tried Win8 on a tablet, it's a fine OS for tablet. Not so much for desktop (I have one installed on a virtual machine), it's just a pain to use without start menu.




By B3an on 6/14/2012 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Without start button on the desktop there are only 3 ways to launch a program from desktop: 1) pin it to the taskbar, 2) create a shortcut on the desktop, or 3) start explorer, manually browse to the folder and launch executable.


...or just bring up Metro. It's called the Start Screen for a reason.

The Metro UI is vastly superior to the old dated Start Menu for launching apps. It's also more customisable and scales with screen res.

When i want to lauch an app i just hit Win key and start typing the first 2 or 3 letters of the apps name and Metro will automatically start searching and displays results. Just like the Start Menu did, however Metro will show up to 150 results with large easy to recognise icons. The Start Menu only ever shows 20 items at most and does not scale with screen res. With Metro, the higher your resolution the more results displayed.

All your installed software will have icons on the Metro Start Screen anyway... so just.. you know, click on it?!

This is what you usually have to do on Win 7/Vista to launch an app:
Start Menu > All Programs > scroll down through the tiny list box > possibly expand a folder and scroll more > click on app to launch.

On Win 8 the same task is:
Start Screen (Metro) > click on app icon. Done!


By twhittet on 6/14/2012 7:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All your installed software will have icons on the Metro Start Screen anyway... so just.. you know, click on it?!


So i have EVERYTHING in the stupid Metro Start screen? So if I want a calculator - it has a Icon there. And RDP. And GPO admin. And 20 games. And I'm calling BS on your part, or Microsoft is turning the Metro "Start Screen" into 500 little tiles instead of an ORGANIZED Start MENU.
*waves BS flag*

So I want to open calculator. And I don't happen to have a Metro icon, or maybe I even deleted it because they're ugly and I didn't want 1000 icons. I don't have it pinned. What do I do? I don't just....you know....click on it!? cuz it's not freaking there! It's nowhere.

I can hit Start and start typing. Sure - if I want to switch to a keyboard. But that goes against the whole point of...you know..just clicking it?! What kind of touch interface is this where you have to use a keyboard all the time? If I had a menu, I wouldn't have to switch back and forth between a mouse and keyboard every 10 seconds.

I could...you know...just click on it!? Oh wait..I can't.


By PrezWeezy on 6/14/2012 9:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Microsoft is turning the Metro "Start Screen" into 500 little tiles instead of an ORGANIZED Start MENU.


Apparently you haven't used it yet. But the first "Start Screen" that comes up is your customized set of icons you use all the time. They are "pinned" on the first screen. If you want to see everything that is installed you can do that too. It is in a list view with the icons organized under headers just like folders in the Win7 start menu. It is a little more cluttered, admittedly, when you look at all apps. That said I have never, since it launched in March, used it. I use the icons on the first screen that I've setup the way I want, or I use the search. The "all apps" view is there and can be used, but I haven't found need for it. It actually works really well. Instead of multiple clicks to get to a program (I know I used to have up to about 6 drilling down into menus) I now have two. It works really well.


By twhittet on 6/15/2012 2:13:08 AM , Rating: 3
No, I AM using it, that's the problem. Hasn't been close to intuitive for me - so good luck for a typical user.

Admittedly I did find calculator under the Apps screen.
- The Apps screen is a mess. I have like 3 programs installed so far on this pc and I already have to scroll a whole page over (lots of wrist action vs small movements). It will be much worse once programs are actually installed. Organized like crap. Running higher res may help. It will still be 500 stupid tiles!
- How the hell does a person get there? I finally googled it. Because nothing is intuitive. You can get to it by right clicking at the bottom of the Metro UI. If you right click in the middle, you have to scroll all the way over to the left corner. Once again, horrible on a mouse.

So to find a calculator with just a mouse, I have to go to a completely different screen (hiding any work I was in the middle of - like maybe some numbers I wanted to put in a damn calculator!) and sort through a jumbled set of icons/tiles. Awesome.

Why don't they just call this what it is - Windows tablet edition.


By CaedenV on 6/15/2012 5:30:48 PM , Rating: 1
Um... the apps menu is alphabetically organized, what exactly is confusing about that?
Also it has icons next to each name, so you don't even need to be able to read to find the calculator. Also, if you are on the start screen you can just start typing 'cal...' and by the 3rd letter you can hit 'enter' to open the program, or right click on it and pin it to the start screen or superbar and NEVER have that problem again.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a learning curve (especially moving from version to version as things have changed slightly), but once you get use to the new workflow it is quite nice. And it is just as drastic a change as it was moving form dos to win3.1, or 3.1 to '95, but without 1/2 the headaches I had moving between those platforms because most of the good old keyboard shortcuts still behave the same in spite of the GUI changes.


By augiem on 6/15/2012 10:13:10 PM , Rating: 3
I'll never understand why so many people think lumping everything together in one giant grab bag is superior. I guess because people have forgotten how to think or are senile and don't want to put forth the effort to learn anything. All the smart phones were this way in the beginning until some GENIUS at Apple with, what, iOS version 3 or 4, got the idea to add... *drum roll* FOLDERS (WHOA what an idea) to the app page. MS is guilty in various degrees of this in the past with MyDocuments and now Windows 7 phone (What?! a 1-app column of every prog installed on the phone? brilliant!) Apple is taking it even further with changes to OSX Lion Finder where they encourage users to just go to the giant grab bag for all their pics, videos, docs, etc and not remember where they put things.

Why is every version of the start menu superior in every way to ScrollBar 8's new gimmick? O R G A N I Z A T I O N . I am a power user, I admit it, but I just did a quick catalog of my start menu and I have ... 935 items in my start menu all neatly organized under 6 main categories and further subcategorized below that. I know some people love the Win Vista/7 type-to-find thing, but I don't at all because some programs I use infrequently and don't even remember the proper name, but I know they're organized under Utilitiess\Security\etc. They stay neatly tucked away, not in my face all the time like in Metro. I don't always go for the start menu either. My most commonly used programs are run with hotkeys, quick launch, RocketDock, or a Favorites folder on the start menu. I like having my options.


By JediJeb on 6/15/2012 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
I just a lot of legacy programs, some still 16 bit that can not be replaced easily, will those install to the Metro UI screen or where will they end up? Our IT department is always trying to push us to the newest OS available to make their lives easier, but most of our equipment has not had new versions of software written in years. I would hate to tell our IT guys they need to find us $100k for each computer they want to upgrade because we would need to replace the expensive equipment attached to it. Well maybe I would like to tell them that to keep them quiet on making changes so often.


By johnsmith9875 on 6/29/2012 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like my LG800 phone interface, and I hate my LG800 phone.


By Wolfpup on 6/15/2012 3:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the Start menu makes WAY more sense than this Metro thing does for a normal desktop. Sure, for touch Metro may make sense, but it's inefficient for normal PC usage.

Right now, most of us probably have a handful of programs we almost always use pinned to the task bar, and then from there lesser used stuff on the start menu.

Well Win 8 you're having to drop to a different screen to launch lesser used programs...and then the Start menu of course hides even LESSER used programs better still. Win 8 appears to give you quick access to your programs you'd already have pinned, but much clunkier and slower access to everything else. I'm TRULY amazed they'd do this.

Heck, even if they wanted to make the Start menu more Metro LIKE, I can see that, so long as it's not actually switching to a seperate screen.

Also...presumably they're not REALLY getting rid of Aero right? Sounds like they're just getting rid of transparencies for some reason? I like them, but so long as it's still actually using hardware acceleration...

I am actually kind of excited to see whether Windows 8 on an x86 tablet really can give you everything an iPad does...except with more power and it's a real PC. If it can do that and give similar-ish battery life, iPad SHOULD be dead. Now it's Apple, and they can sell absurd products to millions, but still...


By Belard on 6/15/2012 8:44:32 AM , Rating: 3
NO, its not. Metro is crap... and worse yet, MS wants to rape us with Metro, why are they fighting to hard to force people to use it. Hint: don't.

The VIEW ALL APPs (not everything is an APP), is another click and YOU cannot organize it, you cannot rename jack with Metro. I know, MS made it extra difficult with vista/Win7 to rename and move folders in the Start menu, but I like to rename "Microsoft Office 2010 Word" down to "Word"... with Metro, the long-ass name will be whatever stupid name the printer company names it... and worse yet, some companies will install 3 stupid folders for their printer driver, rather than a single one.

Metro is a mess for the desktop... its fine for the phone / tablet... but for a full blown CREATION device, no.

I understand the concept, its a "Start scren", okay, they the whole system should default to the desktop, no?

What about the extra step in logging on? With Windows 7, just start typing in your password... no clicking, no swiping.

PS: I thought was I saw in the preview was their updated GUI for desktop... what they have here is pure crap.


By hemmy on 6/15/2012 10:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
If you are complaining about productivity why are you not using the search functionality to launch your programs? Give my Windows 8 and I will beat you using W7 any day of the week if you actually use the start menu. Regardless of whether you use search or not, launching a program from "All Programs/Apps" is NOT any more clicks than W7. It takes 1 extra click to get to the All Apps view, but fewer clicks to actually launch an app than it does in W7, which you must dig into the folders.

That brings me into the next bit of delusion in your post - your complaint about companies not using a consistent start menu organization hierarchy is actually something W8 IMPROVES on over W7. This is because you no longer have to dig deep into folder after folder trying to find the shortcut to launch the app, it is right there, organized by folder by not hidden away IN the folder.

And complaining about the lock screen? lol. You can dismiss the lock screen when you start typing. No clicking or swiping required.

You can absolutely be just as productive in W8, and none of the things you listed do at all justify your "Windows 8 is crap" conclusion. Sadly, just like pretty much everyone who hates W8 you don't actually know why you hate it, you just hate it.


By Gondor on 6/15/2012 12:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
With an application running it surely takes even more clicks just to get to that silly list ?

With start menu you simply open the menu and launch whatever you want, you don't have to move your hand from mouse to keyboard and back.


By CaedenV on 6/15/2012 5:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
If using the mouse just go into the bottom left corner where the start menu use to be;
Lo and behold! a start screen button appears! Just like the good old start button, then scroll to the application that you want and launch it. Really, it is better than the old defunct start menu.
Lets not forget that you can also still set up hot keys in win8, and pin programs, and have desktop shortcuts, and very easily organize the start screen to just about anyone's liking, and it brings together news, weather, programs, websites, RSS feeds, photos, facebook/twitter updates, etc. all in a single medium (play/pause/next options on the tile for the player would be nice though...). I may not like the tile aesthetic, but to say that it is worse in any way to the start menu is nuts. And if you don't want all that crap on your start screen? Just right click or swipe down on what you don't want, and then remove it. Personally I love it now that I have gotten use to it.


By JediJeb on 6/15/2012 5:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't been able to use W8 yet so I was wondering if I can use it they way I do XP now. I put my three or four programs up, stacking the windows so I can easily click the edge of each one as I need it, and leave a small amount of desktop showing around the borders of those windows where my most used program icons sit. I can open and close everything I need without using the start menu and I can easily jump from one to the other with no hassles at all. I heard that with the Metro UI everything goes full screen, or has that changed? I would hate to be minimizing and maximizing everything back and fourth all day, that would just waste a lot of my time.


By Belard on 6/16/2012 2:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you want access to four programs, windows 7 pin to task bar works fine. Better than XP's quick launch. You can cover your whole desktop with windows and have access to what u use he most.

Win8 desktop is pretty much the same as 7/xp. It's just going to be ugly and have a full screen start menu that you can't customize much.


By Belard on 6/16/2012 2:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you want access to four programs, windows 7 pin to task bar works fine. Better than XP's quick launch. You can cover your whole desktop with windows and have access to what u use he most.

Win8 desktop is pretty much the same as 7/xp. It's just going to be ugly and have a full screen start menu that you can't customize much


By Belard on 6/16/2012 12:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
start menu organization hierarchy is actually something W8 IMPROVES on over W7. This is because you no longer have to dig deep into folder after folder trying to find the shortcut to launch the app, it is right there, organized by folder by not hidden away IN the folder.

A menu structure that YOU cannot edit, rename, re-organize to something YOU may want.

My Menu structure is *mine*, its clean. I have all my games in "games" I have all my serious apps in "Work", I have my handy programs in "Tools"(Zip, screenshot, image viewer), I have system settings/tools under "Maintence", I have rarely used crap under "Rare Use". MS makes it a bit of a bitch under Win7, but not impossible. With Windows 8, its Icons, not a list view.

So WTF does Metro Want? Touch screen, keyboard or mouse? Start typing your app or your file... what about my Jump List, that was HANDY!

Why do I need a whole fracking screen to launch a program? Okay, I have my icons on the desktop, then WTF do I need Metro for? Why does it have full-screen apps that runs on its interface, but not on the desktop? What if I want to run a metro app along side MS-Word 2010? Oh wait, can't do that because MS Word 2010 doesn't run under-metro and that metro-app doesn't on the desktop. Does copy & paste work? The Windows key doesn't always go back and forth between desktop and metro.

A skilled team can simplify without making a program useless... Windows8 has noting that makes using metro dealing with.

quote:
you listed do at all justify your "Windows 8 is crap" conclusion. Sadly, just like pretty much everyone who hates W8 you don't actually know why you hate it, you just hate it.

The things I listed *DO* justify that windows 8 metro *IS CRAP* Maybe Windows8 is what starts the destruction of the Earth in 2012... who knows. If we live to see 2013, you'll see the shit-storm that win8 will cause.

You willing to wager on it? After Win8 releases, just be on the look out for "Belardo". You can either laugh at me or curse me then. :P

I know why I hate it. I booted up Win8 with a positive and open mind. I have an operational Win8 PC I can boot up at any time. Trust me, I've helped MS sell copies of Windows7... and I've easily taken away at least 40 sales of Win8 in 10 days since I first tried out Win8. And *I* do suggest and recommend anyone try it out for themselves.

I don't need to put words in people's mouths. After 10~30mins of playing with Win8, many said "this is the dumbest shit". Even when in the first 5-10 mins, they are going "cool", "that's neat".

Sorry Hemmy, its nice that you like Win8... there is always somebody who likes crap or whatever. Thinking back to the mid-late 1980s when people would choose a $5000 POS MS-DOS PC over a $1500 Amiga which (A) had a GUI, (B) a lot cheaper than a PC or a MAC (C) had true multi-tasking that MS wouldn't have until 1995 for the general user base. (D) MS-DOS's itself *IS and WAS* always a sub-standard DOS since it was farted out of Microsoft's door.

I am fairly open-minded, but in the real world - most people are not... if THEY were, most people would have left Windows years ago for Linux.


By Lugaidster on 6/16/2012 6:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am fairly open-minded, but in the real world - most people are not... if THEY were, most people would have left Windows years ago for Linux .


Hah, cool story brah. Come back to me when Linux works out of the box with current hardware (GPUs) and has feature and performance parity on them.

Besides, with the mess that is Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4 (albeit, the latter is shaping up a bit) and the fragmentation, it's not much better than Windows. Only benefit it has is security, and dumb people will always make sure to mess it up.


By Belard on 6/16/2012 3:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
So what part of "open minded" did you not understand?

- GPUs dont matter much anymore. Far more games on consoles.
- browser is the most used program in the world, the OS doesn't matter as much... Hence I'm typing this on my iPad, cause I don't feel like turning on my desktop.
- yeah, Linux is a mess that way. There is no pure standard, never will be. Considering that MS has changed their GUI 6 times in 12 years to apple's OSX which has been the same says something.
- linuxmint worked pretty good on my test box. It's configured like a windows system with a docs, pic, music, etc folders. It's more usable than Metro without someone trying to sell you crap.

Hey, I play a few games, use photoshop and a few other pc only programs. If I didn't need or want to se those, I wouldn't need ms at ALL. Hell, I run office 2003 on my win7 because it does what I need.


By T2k on 6/15/2012 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 1
This is the type of retarded BS you stupid MS shills are hated for all over the internet - you drink enough MS Kool-Aid to believe Metro is more advanced than a Start Menu, that's a statement of being a complete retard by itself.

Stupid lowlife lying shills with no clue about anything, just STFU, please.


By retrospooty on 6/15/2012 11:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
"This is the type of retarded BS you stupid MS shills are hated for all over the internet - you drink enough MS Kool-Aid to believe Metro is more advanced than a Start Menu"

I don't like Metro either, but what a complete asinine post you have made. Seriously dood, anger management.


Why not have both?
By leviathan05 on 6/14/2012 11:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has previously had the ability to add or remove windows components, why not make the traditional desktop one of these components along with aero?




RE: Why not have both?
By Gurthang on 6/14/2012 12:24:47 PM , Rating: 4
I believe the decision is a strategic one to get more development effort in making applications for the metro interface.

Loosing Aero I personally am fine with. While nice looking in some contexts it does waste resources without offering anything more than eye candy.

Now the rest of the changes, while I like some of the new metro apps and interfaces in the CP ad RP editions they seem to be removing functionality in the OS and many applications and not adding much. I mean no naitive MPEG2, or DVD playback, WMC is gone unless you get pro, the mail client does not let me do IMAP or POP, etc.

I still think it is possible to get the "metro" and "desktop" experieces more aligned but in the current build I am just not feeling it.


RE: Why not have both?
By dubldwn on 6/14/2012 12:37:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I believe the decision is a strategic one to get more development effort in making applications for the metro interface.

This is a bizarre theory that I'm very interested in reading more about. MS makes Windows ugly so developers are more likely to flock to metro...
quote:
[Losing] Aero I personally am fine with. While nice looking in some contexts it does waste resources without offering anything more than eye candy.

You just said yourself it's nice looking eye candy. If you don't want it (for vram issues, etc.), you can turn it off. I like it and I'm not worried about battery life. What battery? My rig is plugged into the wall.


RE: Why not have both?
By Lugaidster on 6/16/2012 7:06:12 AM , Rating: 1
So in essence, they are using their virtual monopoly on the desktop space to push for a new paradigm. If only a good alternative OS existed that worked equally well (No, Linux is not an alternative thanks to the assholes that are too focused on licences rather than the actual software), people would just move to there. Metro currently has no leverage other than it comes with Desktop Windows.

My biggest gripe with Windows 8 is the being closed portion. I don't like closed stores that only allow certain software, Windows wasn't iOS (and thank god it wasn't), I don't know why MS is so bent on making it like that. As long as another company's software has a say on how I should be using my computer, I won't use that software. Sadly that means I'm stuck with Windows 7 for the foreseeable future as FreeBSD and co. don't have good hardware support.


RE: Why not have both?
By EnzoFX on 6/14/2012 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
Thank god Aero was gone, it was bad design coupled with cheap effects. People do like shiny things however...


RE: Why not have both?
By JediJeb on 6/15/2012 5:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have been turning off the sliding menus, mouse pointer shadows and such since W2K and XP, I finally figured out how to get rid of them on my new W7 laptop.

I can't find any of the things I used to be able to find before. It took me 30 minutes just to find where they put the menu for adding another user.


RE: Why not have both?
By augiem on 6/15/2012 10:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I hate how they keep reorganizing things. I wouldn't hate the fact that they reorganized them if it was to make it better, but it feels like they keep doing it because they simply cannot make up their minds. And don't get me started on how they've buried all the system level stuff behind 3-4 windows of feel good fluff. So irritating to change network properties now. Win8 is taking it a step further with the blue screen of unhappiness :( .


Cool
By damianrobertjones on 6/14/2012 4:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
The current consumer preview still has transparent sections.

I recently showed the Site Services manager Windows 8 and after a short time, without being prompted, he said that it was really looking good and that information was right there in front of him.

Standard users will really take to Windows 8 while the techies will still carry on complaining.

As it stands I will never, ever, EVER miss the Start button. Why not? I hardly ever use it.

P.s. How many posters here today work for Apple/Google? It's a new age after all




RE: Cool
By robinthakur on 6/15/2012 6:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
That anecdote is interesting as we have been showing w8 to users as well. Whilst most found it hard to believe it was a windows OS with the fisherprice graphics, thry thought it looked ok. The problem arose when it came to using it, and they found it frustrating and non intuitive. By comparison, they'll happily use their iPads and iPhones, but they arent the most technical bunch of users. We are adopting a wait and see policy at our work and will continue to stick with W7 for the foreseeable future unless a compelling reason crops up. As we can use the iPads with every MS system including office, exchange and sharepoint, having a dedicated MS tablet solution is not as compelling as MS seems to think.


RE: Cool
By Belard on 6/15/2012 8:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
Is metro a START "screen" or its own OS? Why are some apps in metro, but not in desktop then...

Going back and forth, becomes really old. They could have made the Start menu a metro interface, that would have made more sense, no?


RE: Cool
By hemmy on 6/15/2012 10:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Its whatever you want it to be. If you don't want to run Metro apps, DON'T. They did make the start menu a metro interface, and full screen. Why is that so difficult to understand?


RE: Cool
By Belard on 6/16/2012 12:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
Then why start in crappy metro? So MS presents Metro as the NEW OS interface and the desktop (Windows) as its bastard stepchild.

But, since you CANNOT use windows8 without touching crap-Metro, it makes Windows8 un-usable. We are supposed to be going forward... not going back to the days of DOS/Single-tasking.

I *DO* understand... I also understand that the novice users and the business users are going hate it far worse than me. I hate that the metro OS is always trying to sell you shit... in which case, Windows8 should be FREE... and even still, I'd rather pay for Win7 than deal with 8.

That would be a cool voting thing to do a few months from now... Choose 1:

Windows 7 = $100
Windows 8 = $ 10
WindowsXP = $ 50


EPIC FAIL!
By cyberserf on 6/15/2012 2:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
XP was the best. clean look, intuitive/practical.
Internally there were lot's of problems but most were worked out after SP3.
Vista/7 are just XP with better looking GUI with improved internals and many things that used to intuitive and practical hidden under menu's.
now Metro is going to be revamped GUI with same internals as Vista/7 hidden under even more archaic menu's.
they do this all the time to make it look newer. same stuff.
They are hiring newbies who have no clue what the power user wants.
LOL




RE: EPIC FAIL!
By CaedenV on 6/15/2012 5:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you do not remember all the belly-aching about XP being the 'cartoon OS', and that it ran poorly compared to Win2K due to all the 'eye candy' and 'effects' (and the pesky security features that ate resources without doing anything). And the Welcome Screen was a terrible thing and inefficient way to log into a computer.

Vista/7 are quite different from XP in that they changed a lot of the structure to make it much more secure from the viruses that plague XP (really... antivirus is like a comfort blanket these days... almost entirely unnecessary). Add to that the new Aero Interface, an IP stack that finally worked OK, a wireless interface that was usable, much better Ram usage, the ability to offload graphics to the GPU (in 7 at least), better thread management for multi core support, and the list goes on and on. It is like saying that winXP and 7 are the same because the registry and the file structure are similar, because that is about all they have in common.

Saying win7 and win8 are the same is equally short sighted. There are a lot of similarities (especially in the early builds), but now it has an entirely different UI, and UI engine. It has pretty good cloud integration simply not available in win7 (though it needs work still). It has yet a better IP stack, and the USB stack is noticeably faster. The resource monitor is so much more available and easier to use, as is the new file transfer management, and file association capabilities. The ram footprint is extremely small (XP sized) on systems with limited memory capacity, while still taking full prefetching ability for desktops with skads of ram. Oh, and the install is nearly 1/2 the size of win7 with all these improved features, while still retaining arguably better backwards compatibility than win7 had. But the taskbar is the same, and the file and registry structure are similar to win7/vista/XP/2K/NT/98, so it must be the same thing with just a little window dressing...


RE: EPIC FAIL!
By cyberserf on 6/15/2012 6:56:12 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft gave some choice then. You can turn of the Weclome screen and the eye candy.
What you emphasize is exactly what I said.
They did improve the internals but it still is based on XP. If you look at all the resulting menus such as device manager and many other menus it is all the same. All they did is re-arrange it to make it look new but not better.
In XP I can change several things just by right clicking my desktop and choosing properties.
in 7 they added several windows to do the same thing. that is better?
Windows explorer was perfect but now it is a complete mess.
and like I mentioned I was talking about the power user.
for the masses who don't tinker it is probably ok.


RE: EPIC FAIL!
By johnsmith9875 on 6/29/2012 10:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I found XP to be goofy looking. In Windows 7 the first thing I do is switch it back to the classic interface.

Microsoft's GUI peaked at Windows 2000.


Luxury
By anandtech02148 on 6/14/2012 5:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Like a luxury car, no one cares whats under the hood. If you do open it..its coated and covered. I think i'll keep my windows 7 for another 5yrs.




RE: Luxury
By NellyFromMA on 6/15/2012 8:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
In many ways, Microsoft can afford to expirement with Win8 and make these bold moves; even if it doesn't work, it wasn't worth pouring all of those resources into a strictly desktop OS. win7 is already the best desktop OS hands down. It's established. Win8 is an attempt to come up with the best of both worlds but its unashamedly geared towards mobile touch interfaces. That much is clear. Anyone that will like Win 8 will be pleased. Anyone who doesn't already has the best desktop OS available to them to either purcahse or conitnue using. Look, MS didn't even trick you into buying a modest upgrade of their OS, you can just continue using what has already been established as the best.

Of course, MS wants to make their successor win. The question is, what winning means to them isn't necessarily what you think winning means for them. As far as I can tell, they already are and IMO Win8 will be deemed a success internally if it succeeds in the touch and mobile sectors. Anything else is extra.


RE: Luxury
By Belard on 6/15/2012 9:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the plan to have a common interface between 3 platforms (desktop / tablet / phone) makes some sense. It so it feeds on itself.

- Windows Phone OS is excellent. Love it... nobody is buying it. Maybe because todays Windows Phones are 2 year old tech. My contract is up, if at&t sold a Lumina 800 with HD/retina like rez, dual core for $100 (the price of a 900), I'd get it.

- Tablet = nothing.

- Desktop, they have about 95% of the market.

So by making the desktop interface standard the same as their phones, the GOAL is to get people to want to buy said phones and tablets. Makes sense.... but.

Limited and poor phone choices, $700~1000 tablets (really?!) and a broken desktop interface.

I think Win8 will piss off so many people, they will RUN away from WP8 phone and tablets.

I have Win7 on my hardware... I use an iPad and my phone is Android - running a WP7 interface launcher.

Windows8 is going to be very painful. Make Vista look like nothing.


Aero power usage
By DanaGoyette on 6/14/2012 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of Aero and power usage, my laptop reported one watt less power usage with DWM-based drawing, versus the legacy drawing mode.

It makes sense that GPUs would be more efficient at drawing things.

You can actually turn off the transparency (and hence the blurring) of Aero separately without turning Aero entirely off. I'd imagine Microsoft is doing something like that.




RE: Aero power usage
By B3an on 6/14/2012 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously Aero will draw less power because the GPU is far more suited for this task. Makes me laugh though because when Vista introduced Aero people used to turn it off because they thought it was a "resource hog" but in reality is was faster, got rid of screen tearing, and is far more efficient.

And Aero is just the theme name. The new UI for Win 8 will of course still use GPU acceleration.


Growing Pains Expected
By hartleyb on 6/14/2012 3:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
There will be many things we all don't like about windows8, and I would even go as far as saying maybe most people shouldn't change over until the next version is out. Window 8 is the first step for Microsoft in making a single OS across multiple platforms i.e. desktop, tablet, phone, and possibly server down the road. In any major change there is growing pains i.e. we see this with Google's OS, and with Apple's iOS and it's desktop OS intergration. The goal is, and it's a good goal, is to make a truly intergrated OS for all devices...we will see more and more of this down the road as Apple, Google, and Microsoft all fight to be the first to accomplish this.




RE: Growing Pains Expected
By Belard on 6/15/2012 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
The goal makes sense... growing pains is understood.

But in real life use... its crap. They have to do IT RIGHT.. and its obvious that they haven't. The metro interface is not even a year old... they should have been working on it before Windows7 went to RTM.

They threw this crap Win8 together last year... it shows.


Windows 8, gets worse by the week!
By Belard on 6/15/2012 9:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
When I first saw / heard about Metro, I thought it was a good idea... I didn't do the first preview... some liked it, some didn't.... but I think, its a GOOD idea.

I did the consumer preview... they already flattened the interface a bit, it looks cleaner and better than Win7Aero... but still nice.

Whats in these photos, looks like flat-ugly crap. Really, Microsoft is racing to fail? They are going out of their way to make a crappy ugly, stupid operating system?

Windows ME didn't FAIL because of how it looked. (Which Win8 seems to strive for) WinME sucked because it was unstable, it crapped all over itself, some things didn't work... the strange pastel colors were the least of its problems. MS ripped out things that were STILL important at that time in 2000~2002. XP wasn't out yet or it was quite new. Having an MS-DOS prompt was a life-saver and needed for a Win9x OS (which Me is). ME was bad and many PC makers sold new PCs with WIn98se because it was stable.

XP was growing pains. It looked good, it worked pretty good and not too hard finding your way around.

Vista, look mostly good - drank memory like it was water. It bugged you a lot, it locked up or didn't want to wake up or shut down. It needed 8GB just to be usable. (Win7 and WIn8 will run with 1GB better than Vista with 4GB)

Win8? Looks kinda good, but the new buttons above are ugly... did they hire retards to come up with this stuff? WIn8 us excellent with resources, the system monitor is vastly improved. Copying files is better...

But amazingly, WIn8 still retains the same UGLY blue-purple pie-chart for DISK PROPERTIES from the Windows95 days!

When Windows7 was in development, people like / loved it. MS was actually LISTENING to their customers, the people who buy/sell their stuff. I used Win7Preview as my primary OS. it was that solid.

But with Windows8... hello? There are a lot of people who FLAT OUT hate it. I'd rate it below vista, its so un-usable for a desktop user.

I foresee the future: People will be returning their hated new Win8 PCs. Some manufactures (like Lenovo's ThinkPad line) will be able to continue to sell Win7/XP notebooks.

When bestbuy/frys/sears/toy-r-us get tired of the returns... as well as HP, Dell, Acer, Sony, etc... MS is going to get punched in the balls.

Its easy to UNDERSTAND why microsoft is doing all of this. They cannot retain or grow market share. They can slowly lose it or collapse. With PC gaming virtually dead with all the AAA titles going to consoles, who needs a PC?

Windows OS is nothing more than a launcher for MS-Office and Quickbooks.

As long as WE have access to a browser (such as my 4" screen cell phone), we can do anything. Work, play games, read mail, do facebook, twitter, look at porn, etc.

Nobody needs Microsoft Windows for that. Eventually, some people will say "Why am I spending $300 for an OS and office suite? Who am I really writing letters to?" Libre Office does more than enough for most people (I know and agree, its not up to Office2003 standards and not 100% compatible). Its free... Linux, free. My experience with Windows8 had me download and try out LinuxMint on the same hardware. Its as elegant as Window7... more functional than Windows8/metro.

I'll keep my Win7 though. When Adobe gets around to making Photoshop for Linux, then I'll make my switch.

Window8, if it somehow scores a homerun and everyone loves it (I doubt it), then MS may see increase sales in their tablets and phones. But MS's pricing system is garbage and such tablets will costs $750~1000?! Meanwhile Apple and Android tablets are starting out at $200~350.

But, when Windows8 bombs worse than vista and they are force to extend the sales of Windows7 (I cannot sell any of my clients onto metro) for 3 years while MS sticks their fingers up their butts trying to figure out where they went wrong... their tablet sales WILL tank and the phone market will stay at or below its current -2%. yeah, that's right... If the Win8Metro experience is HATED by the consumer base, they WILL NOT BUY Win8/metro tablets.

Good or bad, in the next few months its going to be an interesting show. I hope I don't have to stock up on some Windows7 licences. :(

Bonus points: Microsoft, this is HOW I would have handled it. Windows8 Mobile covers tablets and phones. Its $20 to licence (not $85!), its strictly a metro interface.

Windows8 would have all the cool improvements you currently have now. Remove the idiot things you have done to it. Metro is not the boot-up interface. When your mouse hits the START button (with or without a click) - The default Metro Start-menu shoots out. The mouse wheel scrolls it up and down. BUT, IT HAS THE WINDOWS 7 Run/All Programs and Startmenu items.

And when a user clicks on a METRO Application, it opens a WINDOW on the desktop or full screen (user prefs)... Thus, Metro Apps can follow its owner/user on any device.

Thats all you had to do... The user has their metro apps, a feel for metro a little bit.

PS: Stop selling Upgrade versions... Sell retail Home for $80 and retail Pro for $100... a 3-pack of them at reduced cost! (1 media, 3 keys) for $120 (home) & $180 (Pro).




By StanO360 on 6/18/2012 12:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Linux Mint is not as "elegant" as Windows 7. It's good, but not that good, and it's clunky to use. Granted I've never installed it on good hardware (old XP machines).

And been there done that with Libre Office. Yes it isn't bad and it's free. But that's like getting day old donuts.


Was the controversy planned?
By TechIsGr8 on 6/14/2012 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 1
So maybe Micro$oft planned the controversy all along, just for the free advertising it would create. I don't think anyone marginally technical would argue that a desktop interface is not a touch-tablet interface, and perhaps the two should not be associated in a large way. I think Micro$oft is making a mistake by relating the two, possibly a way of smearing the issue of their being so late to market with any kind of serious ipad competitor. There is still a large market for the desktop user, and Micro$oft knows this. I can't see any way possible that they were thinking seriously about ditching the desktop interface, or even marginalizing it, in favor of the sliding tiles cr@p.




RE: Was the controversy planned?
By TechIsGr8 on 6/14/2012 1:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
meant to say no one would argue "that a desktop interface is the same as a touch-tablet interface". No editing feature here on DT to change typos...


No aero? Stupid.
By zephyrprime on 6/14/2012 12:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is being stupid. An interface made for mobile is not suitable for larger devices like the desktop. Look at apple - they aren't stupid enough to think that the iphone/ipad os is suitable for desktop. The interface in Windows 7 is dated because it retains so many features from the old windows 95 days. The removal of the start button is a good thing. However, a ui that is obviously made for mobile is poorly adapted for the desktop. Also, aero may waste battery because it is always running in 3d rather than 2d but give me a break - the future is obviously 3d not 2d. It's a joke to think that the 2d is going to stick around forever. The world is 3d and the history of computing will show that 2d graphics were only a stepping stone to 3d.




It reminds me of Windows 98..
By One43637 on 6/14/2012 1:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why MS? Please don't neuter the OS just because you're chasing tablet/mobile sales.




The power is in the beholder
By Tujan on 6/14/2012 2:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'll mention that perhaps Microsoft is using less graphics,and less power so that the op.sys.will run on more expressive hardware. But at the same time,since the last operating system,the hardware has gotten more gpu,and cpu power,with both utilizing better power efficiency.
Think that while this is impressive for the portable,and mobile estabolishment,the desktop can still use more potent hardware. If there is an op.sys.that supports it.
Life is a 3D environment,and a lot of good coding went into the Aero interface. Lot of persons,myself included,do not do the 'net-work-ed internet'with their applications. The computer is still a 'personal computer'. The 3D environment is an 'improvement'. And being so,so is the touch screen components with the hardware that allows the 'machine behind the glass',to be actually utilized.




Lots of herp-derp in these comments
By hemmy on 6/15/2012 10:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
If you make the chrome blue, it looks pretty much just like my current Windows 7 installation.

Calm the f*ck down.




Steve. Please.
By In2Boost on 6/16/2012 4:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
The 800-pound gorilla in the room seems to indicate that MS's first priority with Windows 8 and Metro is to try to lure in some from the swaths that're using an Apple OS.

I don't recall (as much) backlash when WFW 3.11 or NT 3.51 were replaced.




Windows 9: Going for 1984!
By Belard on 6/17/2012 8:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
At the rate MS is going, perhaps they should make the OS B&W like the original Macintosh computer? No shades, no 3D... just black or white.

Cant get more minimalist than that.




Windows 8 Metro Start
By vtedwards on 6/18/2012 4:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have no problem with the new metro start screen. My major complaint was answered when Microsoft added better management of a second screen. Now I can have the menu and apps display on the smaller screen, while my larger screen can display main programs. I can extend capabilities moreso with the Display Fusion program.

The metro takes a little getting use to, but I don't think it's as bad as WinME. I do think Aero does needs to stay, or maybe it needs to be shutdown as its default. I probably won't be upgrading all my home computers to Windows 8 when it comes out. My three HTPCs will remain Windows 7 Professional so I can keep Media Center as it is.




By StanO360 on 6/18/2012 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
I've known these clean desktop people before, they completely miss the point. The Start button is just for the 1 in 20 instances you need something not on the desktop.




By johnsmith9875 on 6/29/2012 10:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
Its not about mouse usable vs tablet usable. If you were forced to use a mouse with IOS you would have no problem with it.

Apple knows how to design interfaces, Microsoft is clueless. I've been in computers since 1976 and to this very day I get depressed when they release a new operating system because its time for me to fumble around for weeks trying to find functions I already know that have been relocated or hidden from me in the latest OS release.




Opinionated Idiots
By Dingmatt on 6/15/12, Rating: 0
Looks like...
By 3DoubleD on 6/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like...
By hiscross on 6/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 11:39:22 AM , Rating: 5
Really?

What Linux distro has a robust enough solution to run the entire enterprise sector, and server software integration to boot, all while supporting it 100% so that IT staff can get programming solutions that need work?

Linux is nice for closet techies, Mac is good for consumer use, but neither are 10% the fully functional OS/Ecosystem that Windows is. They arent even remotely close. Your comment is so off base it's not even funny.


RE: Looks like...
By quiksilvr on 6/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... OK, call me when the accounting,shop floor, CRM, inventory, logistics, reverse logistics, supply chain software is ready for business and supported by staff at Red Hat all in a working Ecosystem. Its not even close to being close. It's not even being thought about, much less being developed.


RE: Looks like...
By vignyan on 6/14/2012 12:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Those are not the only applications.
BTW, SAP and oracle software run on linux (only, in some cases). SAP and oracle support their software - not microsoft. Why would Red-hat provide support for third party applications. :P


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know, there are many other examples, but they are only small examples that account for one small piece. My point is that MS has the entire enterprise ecosystem that the whole world runs off. Including every factory that makes every Mac and iPhone. If Linux went away and all software was deleted , a few companies would have to scramble to move over to MS. If Apple went away and all products disappeared, alot of people would have to find new toys. If MS went away and all software was gone, the entire world would grind to a halt. All I am saying is you can hate on them all you want, but no-one else has ever come close to thier accomplishments. No-one else has even come remotely close. It is such a huge accomplishment that as of today no-one else has even tried. Its just too big of a hill to climb.


RE: Looks like...
By Argon18 on 6/14/2012 5:29:25 PM , Rating: 5
No, Microsoft does not have "the entire enterprise ecosystem that the whole world runs off".

Microsoft has nothing in the Mission critical space. Every stock exchange in the world runs on Tandem NonStop architecture (now owned by HP). 70% of the power generation in the US (and 100% of the nuclear power generation in the US) also runs on Tandem NonStop. The big financial houses (like AIG, etc) all run AIX for their critical transaction processing. VISA and Mastercard also use AIX for all their processing.

And then there's Mainframe. S/390, AS/400, etc. Mainframe is still a multi $Billion dollar business for IBM, (and to a lesser extent, HP).

Microsoft owns the desktop and office apps. I'll give you that. And corporate email (Exchange). But that's really all they own, which is a pretty small slice of the global data processing pie.


RE: Looks like...
By zerocks on 6/14/2012 7:59:24 PM , Rating: 5
The worlds real situation is as follows:
If Microsoft/Windows died and became unusable, a huge percentage of the worlds industries would stop and need an alternative.
If Linux/Unix/whatever distro's died and became unusable, a huge percentage of the worlds industries would stop and need an alternative.
If Mac/OSx died and became unusable, a small percentage of the people would buy a cheaper computer and complain about it not being as pretty.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/15/2012 7:55:32 AM , Rating: 3
Try not to be so literal. I didnt say MS is everything to all and no other systems exist. I am saying its the one with the complete package a to z. Noone else has ever done that, nor have they even tried. There isnt even a close 2nd.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
No need to call. Unless you want us to call you to get some sense in your head before you make these silly posts.

None of these software will be supported by Red Hat staff. Neither will they be supported by Microsoft, unless we are specifically considering Microsoft Dynamics.

ERP software that you are talking about will be supported by the respective ERP vendors.

Please think before you post.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Please think before you post."

You arent grasping what I am talking about here. Read up some on how IT works and read the rest of this thread to gain a clue before you start insulting people.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
First I apologize. You are correct, my tone was completely uncalled for. Had a stressful day, but I should have been objective. I am sorry.

But the objective part of the post (buried under the rest of my stupid tone) remains valid.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 3
No worries. been there guilty of that myself.

I agree, its not everything in every company, but its the only A to Z solution and it is running most things in most companies. That is all I was trying to say. Linux/Unix servers have their place, in the IT world, but MS owns it.


RE: Looks like...
By Taft12 on 6/14/2012 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 4
This obviously don't apply to your employer, but the applications at mine run on Linux (some UNIX) servers for every single one of those, save accounting.

Downtime on any is measured in millions of dollars per hour. Can't afford to run any of them on Windows.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
OF course not everything at every company, but in general overall, most of the world's business runs off Windows and Windows servers. I would be pretty shocked if your company isnt running a bunch on Windows server, MS exchange etc etc as well... the end users are also likely accessing those apps from Windows workstations. If not, your company is an extreme rarity.


RE: Looks like...
By Cerin218 on 6/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Looks like...
By vignyan on 6/14/2012 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that his statement was not even remotely accurate.

But linux is used in most mission critical servers,high performance/high reliability systems. It's not the easiest or the latest, but is the most reliable. Look up any of the stable kernels, they are about 5 years old (all new releases are beta). These servers run for 4-6 years without a reboot. I personally owned a server for 3 years straight running on red hat linux. Although, what I did with that was not mission critical :).

BTW, Mac su*ks. Except for the terminal.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
A server is not an enterprise ecosystem. Its just a server.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
And what is your point? So is Microsoft windows - a server.

Most large enterprises run a variant of Unix/Linux. That is part of their enterprise ecosystem. Then they learn Oracle on top of that - which is again, part of the enterprise ecosystem.

Many organizations may also run Windows Server. Actually large organizations choose a variety of OS, and they don't (I will fire my IT Admin if he did) choose anything based on their "love" for MS or Unix/Linux. It is based on their needs, legacy software, etc. They maintain this complexity and that is why they have entire IT Admin departments that support these heterogeneous environments.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
"And what is your point? So is Microsoft windows - a server."

see my other posts above. It's thoroughly explained. It's not just about a server or set of servers. It's the software that the servers run and the software that the users use to run a company. Accounting,shop floor, CRM, inventory, logistics, reverse logistics, supply chain to name a few... All this software is ready for business and supported by staff at MS all in a working Ecosystem. No-one lese does that, no one else has ever even tried.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Except they are NOT supported by the staff of MS. Unless, a company specifically decides to buy and implement Microsoft Dynamics.

If you are running SAP, the leading ERP vendor providing the software you are talking about, SAP issues will not be supported by MS Support. You need to open a ticket with SAP support.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Of Course SAP supports SAP. What of it?

My point is that when companies like SAP are developing or having an issue THEY can call MS support to get help. Its not one app, or one server, its the entire ecosystem that exists. The entire world runs off MS software. You keep putting up small examples of things, and of course they exist, but that is all tiny pieces of the big picture.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 3:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I never said MS Software is non existent in an enterprise. Quite the contrary. Most clients are running Windows desktop OS, and then there are Exchange Servers etc.

But all large corporations are also running UNIX on an enterprise level. In fact, the most popular database right now is Oracle. And the most popular choice of running Oracle is on UNIX variant, whether for warehousing or transaction.

And the software you were talking about are in an ERP system that all large corporations deploy. And part of the ERP is the database that stores the data. Both the DBs (Oracle in my example) or the App Server (SAP in my previous example), run on UNIX.

From what I have seen, the smaller companies with limited IT budget, tend to deploy an MS only environment.

So my original point - UNIX variant is very much in the enterprise ecosystem that runs all those software you are talking about.

And as I previously said, I have yet to see any large company that only runs MS. Lets not consider MS here, though at one point (if I remember correctly), they were running Linux or Unix (cant remember what) for their Website.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 3:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed... I didnt mean to imply that MS runs everything at every company, but linux/unix aren't anything close to the full package. They are reliable servers and way better than MS for large enterprises with large DB's, but it's only a part of the big picture. MS is the only one that does it all, and no-one else is even remotely close. There isnt even a distant second place, there is no-one else at all.


RE: Looks like...
By sbtech on 6/14/2012 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 3
Ok we are good then :D

One point you mentioned, or someone else did (too lazy to now check - brooding on my tea now), is that MS setup is way easier to manage. It does bring down the TCO. I have been recommending Windows R2 + MS SQL to customers myself. They have got quite reliable, and I am expecting them to catch up with UNIX level reliability in the near future.

The above comment in my circle generally starts another debate (you probably faced this as well), that a proper system admin should be knowing UNIX maintenance and a company should invest in IT, blah blah. What they don't realize is that medium sized companies do not want to invest too much in an IT department (talking only personnel here).

Plus any System Admin worth his salt, should also be able to properly maintain secure and reliable Win servers. Just that large enterprises tend to have a mixed environment. Mostly because they grow from small to large, and over time their systems become diverse.

Cheers!


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 4:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
+1 =)


RE: Looks like...
By Argon18 on 6/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like...
By Ammohunt on 6/14/2012 10:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
wow from your account Windows will cure cancer as well. The fact is that Linux is replacing Big iron Unix in datacenters more so than it is replacing/displacing Windows Servers. But that is changing; windows in the server room can easily be replaced by linux/open source solutions if users are conditioned away from Microsoft usage habits. I have used Linux for the last 4 years at work to manage Both windows and command line operating envrionemnts. The last 2 companies i worked for do the majority of the important server work on Linux not windows this trend will continue.


RE: Looks like...
By Helbore on 6/14/2012 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that's totally correct. Even Windows 7 is basically running on the same kernel as Windows 95.

Oh, hang on a minute, no it isn't. Its a completely different operating system.


RE: Looks like...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/14/2012 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, that's totally correct. Even Windows 7 is basically running on the same kernel as Windows 95. Oh, hang on a minute, no it isn't. Its a completely different operating system.


Windows 7 does have roots in the Windows NT kernel though which was released around the same era as Windows 95. :)

The Windows 95 kernel though pretty much ended with Windows ME as Windows XP was more Windows 2000-like which in turn was based on Windows NT.


RE: Looks like...
By Helbore on 6/14/2012 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I know Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel. It certainly isn't basically the same OS as Windows 95, as the person I was replying to suggested.

It's a stupid argument anyway, being as they were promoting Linux, which first came out in 1991. By their own logic, that would make any OS based off Windows 95 better than any linux distro, being that they're just a modified version of a '91 era OS - and that's not even getting into the discussion of linux being modelled on unix, which itself comes from the 60s.

All in all, it was just a useless, poorly-thought-out argument, bereft of facts and logic - commonly known as a fanboy rant.


RE: Looks like...
By zephyrprime on 6/14/2012 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 3
What an ignorant comment. Windows 2000 was a totally new code base than Windows 95/98/me. Every build of windows since then is a derivative of Win2K. And how can you complain about windows releases being only tweaks when every Linux release is only an incremental addition to a firmly entrenched code base with little refactoring?


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 11:34:40 AM , Rating: 3
I dunno... Its great for touchscreen devices, but I can't see the point in disabling the option to get the old desktop back for standard non-touch laptops and desktops.


RE: Looks like...
By datdamonfoo on 6/14/2012 11:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Except the old desktop is there. In fact, the pictures on this page prove it.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 11:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, if this leak is accurate. I am bemused by the taskbar. Look how it's returned to the Windows XP days. Better for touch devices by a lot, but I actually liked the popup system of the current taskbar on the Windows 7 desktop.

It's hilarious how we are swinging right back into the past, just with more color saturation.


RE: Looks like...
By 3DoubleD on 6/14/2012 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 4
This is my point. Metro GUI... fine. Just give me the same Windows 7 GUI as well, but with the new features... Windows 7 SP2


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 1:01:27 PM , Rating: 3
If only consumer choice was regarded as an important feature, again.


RE: Looks like...
By kingmotley on 6/14/2012 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are looking at the screenshot of a Windows 95 desktop that was put up for comparison.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 12:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not. Click one of the smaller images beneath the main embedded image of the Metro UI in the article. In fact, here, I'll do it for you http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Win8_Metro_Desk...


RE: Looks like...
By tayb on 6/14/2012 1:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have been running Windows 8 in a test environment for months and I can say that the task bar pictured here is not the default task bar. Whoever took these screen caps changed the setting to never combine taskbar icons. They haven't taken this option away, at least not in the build I have, and I certainly couldn't see any reason that they would at a later date either.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
I am also running the Windows 8 Release Preview. Remember, these leaks are of the -new- Metro UI. Whatever we have now does not apply. We have no idea what Microsoft will do, what it means that Aero is being removed (which brought with it the combined icons and Aero peak preview) and replaced with Metro. If this leak is to be believed, the new Metro is defaulted to label. But again, who knows what the final product will even be.

None the less, it makes sense if the default behavior -is- to do labeling and be more like XP rather than our current builds. That would make using the taskbar with a touchscreen a lot easier, so it makes logical sense that is the way they would go.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 1:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
I should also say, I am suspicious that this leak is even real. Mostly because it is too similar to what we have now. It isn't "Metro-y" enough for me to think this is what Microsoft is going to do to be in line with the Start Screen/WP Metro look. But hey, I like the look of the windows, so if they kept it at this, I personally would be happy.


RE: Looks like...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2012 12:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno how functional it is. What we are being told (by MS as well) is that it will be gone. Well have to see.


RE: Looks like...
By mevans336 on 6/14/2012 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
It is a fantastic OS for touch devices. I find it frustrating to use with a mouse and keyboard so far however, as so much core Windows functionality has been changed and so many things (sans touch) are simply unintuitive.


RE: Looks like...
By Chadder007 on 6/14/2012 12:00:26 PM , Rating: 5
I like it fine for a tablet too, but there is no way Win 8 is going on my desktop. It's awful for multitasking on a large monitor with a keyboard and mouse, must less multimonitor setups.


RE: Looks like...
By tayb on 6/14/2012 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Have you actually used Windows 8? For more than 30 seconds? The core functionality hasn't changed and I can't think of any reason why multi-tasking on Windows 8 would be any more difficult than on Windows 7.

People seriously need to stop jumping to conclusions and actually use the OS. It grows on you. I was a huge detractor but the more I use it the more I like it. Switching from testing on Windows 8 back to working on Windows 7 feels like a step backward, and that's a good thing for MS. That's the same way I felt going from Vista to 7.


RE: Looks like...
By B3an on 6/14/2012 3:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
BS.

I have two 30" 2560x600 monitors and find Win 8 superior for multitasking and multi-monitor setups.

It has better multi-monitor support for a start. You can now finally have a different taskbar on each monitor, and set the wallpaper to scale across all monitors or have a seperate wallpaper on each.

Multi-tasking is basically the same as Win 7 so i question whether you've actually used 8 at all. If anything it's easier though because i can now use multiple taskbars.

Theres also tons of little improvments. Now when i delete a file or shortcut i no longer get an annoying pop up window saying "Are you sure you want to send this to the recycle bin?" It just DELETES it immediately!

The Ribbon added to Windows Explorer also helps. I can customise what Ribbon tasks i want displayed along the top window bar (Quick Access Toolbar), so i dont even have to have the Ribbon expanded. I also like the new File menu added to Explorer. And tasks from this menu can be also added to the Quick Access Toolbar so they're just one click away.

Another nice little thing is when i import photos or video from a camera/phone, Windows will now correctly display the thumbnail images in the correct rotation. On Win 7 and older many thumbnail images were displayed sideways because the OS didn't support image/video orientation data. So even this saves time because i dont have to open up images/video in separate software to actually view them in the correct rotation.

Theres loads more stuff i could mention but i'd be here for ages... but the best thing is just that Win 8 is simply faster than 7. At pretty much everything, while managing to use less RAM.


RE: Looks like...
By croc on 6/15/2012 1:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
"30" 2560x600" Kind a funny shape for monitors... Do you run them in a sort-of-like SLI mode or something? Half of a document on the top one, the other on the bottom one...?

Or is this just a 'big brag' gone a bit curly?


RE: Looks like...
By mmarianbv on 6/15/2012 10:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Theres also tons of little improvments. Now when i delete a file or shortcut i no longer get an annoying pop up window saying "Are you sure you want to send this to the recycle bin?" It just DELETES it immediately!


omg, and i had to click on a check box in windows 7 to do that.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 11:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it looks pretty much the same as the current candidate, just flattened a bit more along the border. I am kinda dubious about this leak since it changes so little, but if so, then it's kinda cool.


RE: Looks like...
By hankw on 6/14/2012 12:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what the issue is. Personally I like the new simple look. I use a computer for the contents. I don't care that the window frame is shiny or metallic looking. It just has to look and feel nice. A simple UI is the way to go.
Also I don't see how this is in anyway like XP (any more than any other version of Windows). All Windows versions allow you to customize the theme colours.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 12:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also I don't see how this is in anyway like XP


Look at the taskbar.


RE: Looks like...
By hankw on 6/14/2012 12:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
What about it? Looks pretty much like my Win7 taskbar but a bit flatter...


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 12:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Compare http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Win8_Metro_Desk... to http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/XP_Water_Color_... as supposed to http://cdn.blogsdna.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12...

Now, you can change the normal Windows 7 icon based taskbar into a XP like one, but it's just amusing that the base metro leak has returned to the larger, named pane space of XP. It isn't a bad thing! It's just funny to me that we're reverting back to that GUI path according to this metro leak. It makes sense for touch devices.


RE: Looks like...
By hankw on 6/14/2012 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that's a setting in Windows 7 right? You can choose whether to hide the text or not....
I guess I've never noticed the difference since the first thing I do is set to always show expanded with text.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do know that's a setting in Windows 7 right?


Well yeah... that's why I said "Now, you can change the normal Windows 7 icon based taskbar into a XP like one", in the comment you just replied to.

I do not set my 7 taskbar to show the name text. I leave it in the stacking icon mode with peak preview. That's the default 7 ships with. If metro ships with the default as the expanded text bar for each individual window or application, that would be the same default behavior as XP. Hence why it's contrary to your original "I don't see how this is anything like XP" statement. It is very much a return to the look and feel of XP, from the default taskbar to the flattened, color saturated window borders. A fall back away from the Vista/7 gui path.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's a preference, and it makes sense for a touch screen where little taskbar icons would be harder for fingers to press. But I personally like the default 7 behavior and look for a desktop versus this. It's amusing nostalgia though.


RE: Looks like...
By hankw on 6/14/2012 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you did say that. I guess I didn't read that part. But it still doesn't change the fact that it isn't anything XP anymore than it's like Vista or win7 or win 95.
In fact my Windows 8 RP has the option to hide/show the icon labels too (and it was set to hide by default BTW). You're assuming the person who took the screens didn't enable it himself.


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 1:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the screenshots I posted and tell me which the 8 "leak" looks more like: XP or 7? This isn't a trick question, the leak looks much more like XP and not like 7.

You're right that the person who took the screens may have enabled the show labels, which is why I say "if" a lot. We don't even know if this leak is valid. But -if- the new Metro GUI ships with slowing the labels as default, and peek preview removed, then it'll very much be a return towards XP and away from Vista/7 philosophy. There no other way to slice it, it's just a statement of observational fact. I'm not saying that would be good or bad, only that it would make sense for touch devices; but your original statement that this leaked Metro UI is nothing like XP is indeed completely invalid, and that's all I've been pointing out to you. From these images it -does- look more like default XP then like default 7, and people are right to point that out.


RE: Looks like...
By hankw on 6/14/2012 1:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
IMO it looks more like default Win7 (ignoring expanded/collapsed icons). BTW that's not even the default XP TaskBar (which is a more colorful blue). If you want to compare default vs default, then it's more like default Win7 than XP.
The problem is that people are comparing a customized XP to a probably customized Win8... just doesn't make sense....


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 1:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the blue XP bar theme http://hhh.gavilan.edu/jmaringer/WindowsXP/PhotosX... . The new metro is still far more like the default XP (flattened colors, labeling with a few choice icons still in icon mode) than the default 7. Since Start is removed from Metro, we can ignore that in both XP and 7.

But here, let us compromise: We could say this leaked Metro UI is a straight up cross between XP and 7.


RE: Looks like...
By kingmotley on 6/14/2012 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the Windows XP taskbar that they put up for comparison?


RE: Looks like...
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/2012 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
I mean http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Win8_Metro_Desk... , or one of the other images beneath the main one.


RE: Looks like...
By gglenn on 6/14/2012 2:27:20 PM , Rating: 4
It is kind of like a reverse-makeover, where they tear down the shiny new McMansion and replace it with a dilapidated shack.


RE: Looks like...
By Belard on 6/16/2012 3:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Good one.

I'd live to see that idiot trump go broke. He'd be a crack whore in 2 days.


Bob 2 must DIE
By dxmage on 6/14/12, Rating: -1
"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki