JorgeA

UltimateSilence, Well, that was extremely interesting! With the understanding that Google's machine translation may not be, um, totally comptetent, the following passage caught my eye. It speaks to something we've been saying here: (emphasis added!)What the writer says about CPUs getting less powerful jibes with what I've been seeing at electronics stores. Lately there's been a rash of new desktop and laptop models bearing CPUs with obscure names from both Intel and AMD that you have no idea how good they are. When you look them up, they're cr*ppy-specced processors that can't hold a candle to what you could find AT THE STORE a year or two ago. (You can still buy powerful, known processors, but more and more you have to go to the manufacturer directly to get them.) And -- yes, that Vista screen is just gorgeous. If I have to look at a computer screen all day long (and in my work, I do), I'd MUCH rather look at the refined, detail-rich Vista screen than at the plain, flat, and boring Windows 8 screen. --JorgeA

Yes this is a source of worry. IMO W8 will be too short lived for any effect to occure but we never know. Freledingue' date=' Thank you, you have provided good and plausible reasons for hope! There does seem to be a progression there, no? I remember one of the first annoying things I discovered about Windows (vs. DOS) was that you could no longer output a directory listing to the printer. Itr seemed like such an obvious function. Never did understand why MS didn't provide that capability. But eventually others came out with utilities to do that. Fortunately, we now have PDF-to-Word converters, and things like YouTube Downloader to defeat that view-and-forget philosophy. With any luck, someone clever will find a way to hack into Metro and enable saving/copying from it onto their computer. And if they can't, then maybe that will help to hasten the demise of Metro (for the reasons you describe later on). --JorgeA

I was a happy Windows 98 user till my PC developed a life-threatening condition where it had trouble starting up (turned out to be dust inside the case, duh) and I went out and bought a Vista machine. That was 2008. Never had anything to do with ME, 2000, or XP. Imagine my shock when I turned on the new computer for the first time and was confronted with all the UI changes. Took me a couple of years to figure everything out. (I wasn't nearly as computer-literate as I am today. Not that I'm a professional IT guy or anything, but you know what I mean.) Oh yeah, and the EasyTech kids at Staples had a heck of a time figuring out how to transfer my files from the PATA drive to the new machine. It was like they were looking at some mysterious Etruscan artifact. It took the old guy on their team to know what it was and how to move the information over. --JorgeA

You must be joking . The intended procedure is: jaclaz, I couldn't have put it better! The procedure you describe is, of course, what Microsoft has in mind when they say "simplicity." A "simple" UI means it's harder and more complicated to actually DO anything... --JorgeA

It pays to read the MSFN frontpage once in a while! Interesting point. I'm sure that others can think of more complex examples, but let's say that one of your live tiles (or whatever they're called) pops up some information that you would like to copy into an Excel or Word file-- is that possible, or not really? Is the info in live tiles "for eyes only"? --JorgeA

Fredledingue, I sure hope you're right! Up above, xpclient described Win8 and Win8 Pro as, I was using that as the starting point for my own comment. --JorgeA I understand. My point was that MS won't find so many dumb users for their Metro UI. Even dumb users know what they want. Fredledingue, Good point. I guess that what I'm worried about is that new Windows users (those who start using Windows with Win8) might never get to experience the richness of "real" Windows. Because MS is treating all of its Windows users like children who can't (or don't want to) handle a more complex UI, these new users will tend to stay in a childlike, simplistic approach to computing. And then as a result, over time the idea of bringing back the Start Menu and Button will become less and less likely, because every day more of these new users will know nothing other than the Metro screen. In that case, we will have to pin our hopes on more experienced Windows users (those who remember "the good old days") showing these newbies what they're missing. --JorgeA

Whoa -- that multitude of wordless, tiny icons going almost all the way across the taskbar would drive me BONKERS! But seriously, this is the beauty of the Windows environment that the Microsoft Steves are trying to tarnish -- we have all these different ways to launch programs, and can choose the method(s) that works best for us. --JorgeA

Yeah, except for the number of desktop icons that's pretty much the way I do it too. The Start Menu is my main to-go place for launching programs. I use mostly the "recent programs" list and the pinned programs, and then drill down into All Programs if I need something else. The right panel with "Computer," "Recent Items," and "Control Panel" is pretty handy, too. Programs that I use once in a while but whose names I'm liable to forget, I keep as desktop icons -- it's clumsy to have to grub around the All Programs list when you're not sure of the name of the program or its publisher. (For Win8 fanboys: The Metro Start Screen doesn't solve that issue, either.) --JorgeA

xpclient, Wow, I have to admit that looks pretty compact! I wouldn't even have to "restore down" windows to see what's in them. Beautiful wallpaper, BTW. B) Thanks for the description, too -- this would work for me. --JorgeA

Fredledingue, I sure hope you're right! Up above, xpclient described Win8 and Win8 Pro as, I was using that as the starting point for my own comment. --JorgeA

+1 If you treat all people like imbeciles who can't handle a feature-rich UX, over time more and more of them will start acting like imbeciles who can't handle a feature-rich UX. --JorgeA

Here's another good critique of the Metro UI that I found in my travels. If for any reason you don't get sent to the intended post when clicking on the link above, it's the one by "psycros." The mod's reply was pretty lame -- basically they're letting the tablet tail wag the desktop dog. And the comparison screenshots show how fugly the Metro-inspired alternative is, with those gaudy kindergarten blocks that moreover lack any textual indication of what they're meant for (what the heck is that "up" arrow??) . Bad, bad, bad. I'll be sticking with current Norton versions for as long as they let me. Some Norton updates include a forced, automatic "upgrade" to the new version. --JorgeA

The video was fantastic, but I loved that Metro screen, too! Having a hard time picking out my "favorite" tile. Speaking of Metro, there is a fabulous short UI analysis in the comments section on this page. Scroll down to the comment by "Boe Dillard." Here's the bottom line: Just occurred to me -- the Metro start screen doesn't provide a "recent programs" list like the Vista/Win7 Start Menu, does it? If so, score another one against the Metro start screen. Sometimes you have to start using a certain program for a while (like tax software ) and the listing bubbles up to that auto list, so that you only need to look it up a couple of times. In Metro, for equally quick access it looks like I'd have to manually move the program to the first screenful, and then move it back offscreen when I was done using the program for the foreseeable future (assuming that I knew when I'd no longer be needing it). --JorgeA

xpclient, Thanks for explaining. I can go either way with the menu -- the classic and the Vista menu are both WAY better than the Metro Start Screen. It's just that there are cases where having a smaller menu display works better for me. For example, sometimes I'm trying to follow complicated onscreen instructions (say, from a Microsoft troubleshooting page) and it helps to be able to read the next step without the menu covering it all up (as the Metro Start Screen does). --JorgeA

I would like better a "conspiracy theory" What if everything till now is a bluff? Wow, jaclaz, that would be devilishly clever. It makes sense in a twisted way, but I'm not so sure anymore that the bigwigs at MS are THAT smart. Another smart "bluff" strategy: Make everyone p*ssed that they removed the Start Menu/Button, and then bring it back in the RTM so that everybody is SO relieved and thankful that they run out to buy Windows 8. They could even frame the move as, "We heard you!!" --JorgeA

xpclient, Very glad to hear this! You're probably one of the best people in the world to ask this of: In Windows 8, using ClassicShell is it possible to re-create a Start Menu in Vista/Win7 style, with no fly-out All Programs listings? --JorgeA

This is great news! If I can avoid Metro altogether, then the Win8 experience goes from intolerably annoying to boringly mediocre (because of the removal of Aero and other interesting 3D screen elements). Odd as it may sound, that's a major step forward. Wouldn't it be ironic if Start Menu restorers like ClassicShell ended up helping to rescue Microsoft from the consequences of its folly? --JorgeA

Everybody who has any common sense or knows how to use a computer turns that off. Perhaps that's the very reason why they ended up creating Win8 too: they based everything on telemetry results from complete n00bs. Yeah, I always turn that off. I don't care for Microsoft (or anybody else, for that matter) keeping track of what I do on my computer. OTOH, declining to participate in the CEIP may be (part of) the reason that we ended up with the Metro screen and no Start Button/Menu. --JorgeA

CoffeeFiend, Thanks to your explanation I think I finally get what Gartner were saying, because there's a difference between WinRT and Windows RT. I gather that WinRT is for the Intel-based tablets. --JorgeA EDIT: From Wikipedia -- Windows RT

The first was rather NT, not RT. Then again, the death of NT means the death of Windows as far as I'm concerned. Thanks, it sounded like they were talking about three different things there (WinNT, WinRT, and Windows RT). But then if we substitute WinNT for WinRT in the quoted sentence, it no longer makes any sense: (original) (modified as per above) How should the original sentence read? BTW, if Gartner is right (assuming we can untangle what they're saying), then it would refute all those Win8 fanboys who've been patronizingly reminding us that we'll still be able to use the Desktop if we want, for the foreseeable future. And it WOULD be the end of Windows. --JorgeA

Very apt analogy, CoffeeFiend. This is the take I'd seen from Acer. Of course, in this case when evaluating the worth of the prediction one has to factor in the source, but obviously there's no question that MS is p*ssing off its partners by setting itself up in direct competition with them. Not just you! Even Bill G. seems now to be downplaying the value of a Microsoft tablet. Just as the Surface emerges (so to speak), the timing of these remarks is interesting. You'd think he'd be eager to promote them as much as possible. And maybe you or others can clarify the following statement, and then comment on what it means: What's the difference betwen "WinRT" and "Windows RT"? I thought the former was simply an abbreviation of the latter. Comments? --JorgeA

What gives? Why single out Vista RTM individually from SP1+? It's modern...ish. Yeah, that caught my eye, too. Also was scratching my head over the fact that XP SP3 seems to have a fuller upgrade path than original Vista. --JorgeA

Wonderful analysis! The folks at MS seem to be confusing "frequency" with "importance." It does not follow from the fact that I use something rarely, that I am better off (or even just as well off) without it. In any case, if the idea is to eliminate functions that are being used less, then supercharging the Start Menu into an aggressive, in-your-face Start Screen that supposedly does the same unimportant thing is the OPPOSITE of what the number-crunching would call for. The whole explanation is simply incoherent, and reeks of after-the-fact rationalization. Bottom line: now I have no idea whether MS removed the Start Menu because metrics showed that it was losing importance and therefore few would miss it (as they'd said before), or because (as the new line goes) metrics showed that it was losing importance and they were trying to salvage it. I don't give a hoot what the reason is -- JUST BRING BACK THE START MENU. --JorgeA

Yeah, it was the same when Windows 7 came out. When I bought my Vista laptop in September '09, I had the option to send for discs from HP to upgrade the OS to Win7. I could be wrong, but I don't remember being asked to pay anything for the upgrade. (I got the discs, but I decided not to install Win7 on the laptop when I saw how plain-vanilla the new OS looked in comparison to Vista.) --JorgeA

I'd like to know what they're smoking over at Redmond, must be some really good stuff. It seems to have enhanced the, umm, "imaginative" powers of most of the MS top brass. --JorgeA