Somehow this greatness eludes most people. Metrophones (Windows Phone) are a complete niche compared to Android and IOS (who look more WIMP-like) And the "success" of W8 is nothing to write home about.
Acer's boss Jim Wong recently accused W8 of being too complicated and one of the reasons for bad notebook sales. They want now to establish "Experience Centers" to get customers accustomed to it.
Wong: "I think Windows 8 is too complicated. People do not understand the system. We must help them now".
The OEMs are ALL crying (was there a single OEM praising 8's performance?) of all Windows sales in the past decade, W8 is the most lack luster, it gets slammed by usability experts, even science magazines join the slam.. how's that in any way great?
Most OEMs cancelled or postponed their RT devices ("entirely and unashamedly optimised for consumption") because of lack of demand. So much for the love "normal" users have for it.
The vast majority of home user don't create content. Most people use them for browsing sites like facebook and gmail, possibly doing stuff in Office and to consume media like Hulu and angry birds. The rare few who do create content outside of office will presumably continue to do so via their desktop applications. But they weren't going to do that on a surface anyway, because content creation is hard on a small screen anyway, as anyone who has tried to type an email into an iPad will know.
Metro is not about content creation. It never has been. It is entirely and unashamedly optimised for consumption.
I fail to see what it has to with my points at all? I am not for the abandonment of metro, but for the full classical interface as an option. It took the more work to remove it then letting it in. The first beta had the start screen AND a fully-working start menu onboard, switchable through a registry tweak (so they put effort INTO annoying users). And no, Start8 is no viable solution. That one needs to pay additional money to a third party to make Windows competitive with older versions of it again for anything beyond Angry Birds is not a solution!
Sure, maybe some extra sales to some geeks.
What? Windows 8 scares "normal" people the most. Not everyone is just on Angry Birds, PCs are still used a lot. And Windows 8 makes exactly those things harder, that most Windows PCs are used for - it actually eliminates the point of buying new computers (if your old W7 PC is more optimized for PC-tasks than the new W8 PC - what's point of the W8 computer?) No wonder there are complaints. Radically altering Windows and expecting everyone will swallow it without problems is fantasy. Geeks have the knowledge about Classic Shell and Start8; it's the normal Windows user who is bound for frustrations with no reasonable escape. Let's not forget that the metro interface and its design philosophy is foreign even to most tablet and smartphone users. Almost everyone of the normal people has Windows and/or Mac experience, but who has metro experience? Metro is a total alien for pretty much everyone.
Users should be able to safely install apps without it damaging their machine in a way that people installing fun EXEs from the web really aren't safe. Determining if software is malicious is equivalent to the halting problem, so the only way to do this is to sandbox them. And most desktop apps don't support being run with hyper-low privileges (for instance, LoadLibrary will normally fail from AppContainer because of the lowbox).
Since Mac does it, it's possible. END.
Expand the appstore mechanism and create a different sandbox (or none at all) for desktop applications. Make the additonal risks of desktop applications aware to the customers, but the option should still be there (I am not asking this for W8 by the way, but for one of the next versions)
Screening of the submitted programs and the registration of developers should elimate most malware.
Intune as a solution for sideloading? That's a joke, right? That's like saying "money is no problem, just go rob banks".
2. The fewer buttons and dials and configuration options the user has to press and tweak, the less likely the app will break, the more likely it will work on a tablet and the more likely the user will get to spend their time enjoying the content of the app and not the mechanics of your config files.
It kind of baffles me to hear someone complaining that the UI isn't complex enough. Come on. This is progress. We don't want to have to navigate stupid menus or find hidden settings in order to consume content. Let your users get the content without having to think about it. Every second they are wasting navigating your menus or clicking your buttons is a second they are pissed off at your app for not letting them do what they wanted to do, i.e. consume the media your app exposes.
So, something like this is progress? If showing buttons makes something less aesthetically pleasing but more helpful than you go for the buttons. It's that simple.