Windows 8 Metro Look. Why? Why? Why?

I am disappointed. Can someone please tell me what wrong with form of type interface shown below on desktop or laptop computers? Why does the user interface design below need to 'go away'?

I just don't understand Microsoft's actions the past 10 years. Their stock price has remained flat. They took ages (more than 5 years) to come out with Windows Vista and although it added a few features, and quite a few serious problems (slow network file transfer speeds link, UAC designed to annoy link), the desktop wasn't radically different from XP and Windows 2000.

Sure, Vista had glass effects and a different theme, but you could apply different themes to XP, and I wouldn't say the aero glass effect improved Windows. To the contrary, it actually craps on performance in most applications link. I'll admit the start menu search box in Vista is a must have, but it can easily be added to XP using free third party software link.

And now there has been an announcement and demonstration of Windows 8, with a Metro-like UI. After watching the demonstration I am left simply asking "why"?

Why does Microsoft feel the need to radically change the user interface every time they come out with a major version of Windows? Do they think their customer are so stupid that they can't understand a product is improved unless its look is completely overhauled?

How about concentrating on trimming down the fat and adding muscle? For example Microsoft could work on creating blazing fast hardware accelerated methods that emulate GDI and GDI+ link APIs. Or Microsoft could work on increasing Windows stability and security while lowering the hardware resources required to run Windows efficiently. There are many improvements that can be made to Windows to make it better by leaps and bounds, but a new skin is not an actual improvement.

If Microsoft is so keen to refresh the look of Windows making it different than before or "cool", why don't they officially open up their theme system to allow users to make their own themes. They should have created a system allowing users to replace icons system wide, common glyphs, window ornaments, and behaviours using packages. If Microsoft made it easy for people to easily download/install/change themes it would go a long way in winning over customers, especially if customers could make Windows look and act like anything. I'm sure Windows users would proudly show off their pimped out desktops on Internet forums. Windows would be cool again.

Why doesn't Microsoft open up their compositing system to allow for integration of third party effects or plug ins? Effects like a desktop zoom, custom exposé, custom window snapping, or anything third party developers dream up related to window compositing?

Why do desktop and notebooks need an even simpler input method? (touch versus the tradtional mouse and keyboard). Why is Microsoft pushing to dumb down so many things related to the PC? We're not afraid of typing long blocks of text. We're not afraid of copying files. People that don't want to type (those who constantly feel the urge to check facebook or watch youtube clips) will move to a different type of device (phone or tablet). They are not loyal to Windows since they all they want is a fun video/blog/facebook post. Get over the social media fad and make Windows central to content creation, which includes programming, video editing, and productivity among other things. If Mcrosoft really wants to get into social media, write a new OS for it and don't call it Windows. Make the OS highly compatible with Windows or .NET even, but target it to devices other than desktops and notebooks.

Why is Microsoft alienating a world of desktop computer users/developer by making our first peak at their next version of Windows seem less like an improved desktop OS (composing letters or forums posts, editing photos or videos, creating web pages, being productive), and more like a thin layer of veneer to make Windows seem more like a tablet OS (finger input, checking the time or weather, playing music or videos, reading twitter or facebook)? It's like Microsoft wants to design computers to be less useful.

Why?

its not going away.

even if Microsoft wont let you boot into this desktop directly, I think you can just add a shortcut to 'Launcher.Desktop' into your startup group and everything is fine. Hmmm.... maybe I can just write an app to do this for you and sell it in the windows store .... profit !

and, just dont run any 'immersive' application, just like Sinofsky said.

@felix9:The point of my original post was to explain that Microsoft has been failing the last decade. I'm worried and asking a bunch of why's. This failing has been reflected by their stock price and lack of compelling offerings since Windows XP. I pointed out some chinks in their Vista and Windows 7 products, but with the initial information detailing Windows 8 released, it seems as if someone has escaped from the nut house and is now strategizing for Microsoft. Overhauling the Windows user interface with a new skin for launching applications is not a proper improvement. Microsoft is failing harder.

Yes, I watched the Windows 8 demonstration video as saw that it will be possible to go back to a 'classic' Windows look. Please give me credit by virtue of my first detailed and long post.

The overall direction Microsoft is taking Windows is worrying. It's worrying because it seems more and more like Microsoft has a lot of clueless people steering it, and their main product Windows. The fact that Microsoft is staking out grounds for features that are utterly useless for their core Windows market (desktop users) is worrying. This lack of usefulness, or diversion into nothing effects me quite a bit, as I am a Windows developer. I've been been a Windows developer for more than 15 years link. I've seen the job market shrink for Microsoft development since the heydays of the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s. It's hard for me to maintain enthusiasm or commitment to Microsoft when they seems so misguided, as explained in my original post.

And by the way, other developers are worried about Microsoft as well link. (responders, please don't allow this link to hijack my original questions)

 

@sysrpl:

Your rants are bunch of contradictions. You complain that Vista was nothing but a slight change to the UI from XP. Now you're complaining that Windows 8 is a complete overhaul of the UI from Windows 7. Make up your mind.

This doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft or Windows.  The computer industry in general is moving in the direction of more natural user interfaces.  At the end of the day, Windows is an operating system.  And it has to serve its purpose of being compatible with a wide range of hardware devices and software.  If ARM CPUs become prevalent it has to support those.  If touch-driven slates or tablets become common, it needs to support those too to remain relevant.  And running well on touch devices that don't have keyboards or mice requires a very different interface to be effective.

It can't happen any other way.

There's an argument that Windows has appeared so stagnant to most people simply because the UI hasn't really changed in any significant way since 95. Sure little bits and pieces have been modified here and there, but the basic arrangement is as it was. Just like Program Manager before it, Explorer has possibly hit the limits of what you can really do with the design.

And with most PC users running applications full screen and generally switching between a handful of apps (some of which are just webpages) maybe it is time to reinvent the interface to fit that world better. Especially as we move to a world with more devices like tablets, smartphones and internet enabled TVs.

I'm not entirely sold on the new UI yet, but I'm not quite ready to dismiss it either. The one thing that looked a bit jarring to me in the released video was actually the bit where it switched back to the 'classic' interface. The success or failure of the Win8 UI may largely come down to how many applications embrace the new look.

Why so worried about Windows Media Center? oopse, I mean, Windows Touch Center.

3 hours ago, sysrpl wrote

Yes, I watched the Windows 8 demonstration video as saw that it will be possible to go back to a 'classic' Windows look.

The video was a demonstration when using a touch based device. Just like how Media Center is the main interface when having a pc connected to a television.

ImmersiveUI looks like a fine improvement over iOS in the usability space. The nice standard navigation techniques and screen sharing/splitting is very welcomed.

I am not completely sold on the flat live-tiles and horizontal-only scrolling though. It seems somewhat unambitious. But compared to iOS it looks better to me; the iOS UX is too simplistic in my oppinion.

I probably wouldn't use ImmersiveUI for ordinary "desktop work", but practical experience will tell how convenient it is to actually use day to day.

The success or failure of the Win8 UI may largely come down to how many applications embrace the new look.

See, there's the thing. I think the UI can work, and I even think that switch to the classic desktop can work, but really, what's going to happen here? People will just keep writing classic old Windows applications. Windows 7 offers jump lists, controls in the live preview, icon overlays and whatnot and I see hardly any application use those. IE8 offered web slices and apart from an awkward eBay demo I've yet to see someone use those either. Microsoft themselves will undoubtedly bring out some stuff that embraces the new look, but they can't switch everything over. I doubt the classic desktop is going anywhere soon.

@sysrpl: Why does Microsoft feel the need to radically change the user interface every time they come out with a major version of Windows?

They didn't CHANGE the UI. They added to the UI. Big difference. And I like Metro. It's computer UI growing up. Moving beyond icons and windows.

@sysrpl: This failing has been reflected by their stock price

Stock price is a terrible way of measuring success/failure

@sysrpl: and lack of compelling offerings since Windows XP

I agree with you there. Although they do have that hurdle of turning XP into Win7. I'm disappointed that MS didnt deliver Metro 3 years ago

@cbae: You insinuate that I complain Vista/7 are slight change to the UI from XP. Oh contraire, I complain that not many changes to the user interface are needed to improve Windows. Microsoft ought to concentrate making Windows better. As I said, trimming the fat and adding muscle. Please re-read my original post. There is no contradiction.

Improvements to a desktop operating should not focus on a new look, visual skin, or otherwise moving or renaming items (for example changing the control panel). Microsoft should be working on adding real benefits to each new version of Windows. Muscle in new features such as (and these are off the top of my head) programmable OCR system built right into the OS, a programmable SQL like database for the file system built right into the OS with a standard, easy to use, and a programmable non-linear hardware real time video compositing API to be used by applications, and migrate all operating system drawing to a vector based APIs. Trim down the general resources used by Windows when it's standing still, continue working to improve stability, boot time, and security. Replace legacy APIs with better APIs (map GDI and GDI+ unto the hardware).

And IF Microsoft really wants to improve the look of Windows, leave it to the users. Provide them a powerful way to customize Windows and stop locking Windows down themes and compositing extensions. Give them the tools to have fun making Windows look and behave different, then concentrate on adding real benefits to Windows.

Windows is desktop computer operating system. Show the power of the desktop by allowing people to be creative with it (for example by shipping a video compositing and streaming video API containing great reliable features, performance, and superior quality), and with each version of Windows refine the speed, stability, security, and resource usage.

Do not chase social media. People can access social media from the browser or through third party software, but leave it at that. Don't try to make Windows compete with social media devices like smart phones or the emerging tablet (iPad or Honeycomb derived Android devices) OS market.

@CreamFilling512: I agree that many new computers (phones and tablets) are moving to a more natural interface. But these devices are new (relatively speaking) and they're being built from the ground up for very specific devices (small to mid sized mobile tablets).

There is no rule out there that says all operating systems should converge into a similar model. Different strokes for different folks. Phones and tablets are geared towards people on the go that want quick access to entertainment (music, videos, games, and socializing). This is something a desktop computer isn't really optimized for. Sure you can use a desktop for those purposes, but sitting down to a computer with a keyboard and mouse just to listen to music is awkward.

The forte of the desktop OS should be to allow people to be creative (create content), or be productive. There's room for both smart entertainment devices (phones and tablets) and powerful yet sophisticated creative devices (desktop computers). These devices do not need converging It's fine that they look and act radically different.

Replace legacy APIs with better APIs (map GDI and GDI+ unto the hardware).

GDI is hardware accelerated if your GPU supports it on Windows Vista and above. GDI+ is hardware accelerated most of the time because it is just shortcuts into GDI.

You claim that people upgrade their Windows regardless of UI changes, but unfortunately that isn't true. Windows Vista wasn't enough of a change to get people interested in upgrading from XP (I still meet lots of people who say "yes but what did Windows Vista/7 actually change" and many people who flat out insist that Windows 7 is the same as Windows Vista).

Despite the recent mega-fails of Sony and other companies getting hacked left-right-and-center, people don't put money into having a more secure OS, they put it into having a shinier one.

When people ask me what Windows actually changes each kernel version, I tell them that Windows XP dumped the WinX kernel and went to NT, Windows XP SP3 introduced PAE/DEP/NX, Windows Vista introduced ASLR, Windows 7 ASLRed the kernel and make IPv6 the default IP stack if available. Windows 8 has several new nice security features too, but you can bet your * that nobody's gonna talk about it in the news, and so if Microsoft wants to sell Windows 8, they're gonna do it based on changes people see not changes people need.

@evildictaitor: GDI in Windows 7 still is not hardware accelerated in many areas link and link. GDI+ is still a software rasterizing API. IIRC the Matrox Parhelia was the only video card that ever had GDI+ acceleration. Microsoft should revise those APIs to map ALL of their functions to an optimized D3D based backend.

In my previous posts I don't claim why people upgrade in any way. I stated that Microsoft seems redo their user interface with each major new Windows release, as if they believe their users are stupid, and only able to discern improvements if it contains notable user interface changes. This isn't the same as the actual reason people upgrade.

If I had to speculate why people upgrade to a new Windows OS, I'd say it's people because they bought a new desktop and notebook computer, and periodically those new computers comes with a new operating system.

Now whether or not new user interface changes drive customers to buy a new computer is debatable. Surely major interfaces changes that reflect many new features (such as Windows 95 when compared to Windows 3) drive some people to upgrade or buy new computers.

My opinion is that that new versions of Windows should center on real actual improvements (see my previous posts) over cosmetic or unnecessary changes. Adding weather or time tiles versus  weather or clock desktop gadets are not actual improvements.

 

 

Microsoft should revise those APIs to map ALL of their functions to an optimized D3D based backend.

Yep, because it makes total sense to take an ancient ('80s) API like GDI, that lacks a lot of modern functionality (gradients, alpha blending, antialiasing) and that wasn't designed to be accelerated by 3D hardware and modify it to use D3D.

And it makes even more sense for the Windows team to waste time doing this while other MS teams (IE, Windows Live, VS) are busy moving to D2D or WPF.

And when the new Windows version is done people will be amazed of how fast some list columns can be resized in a poorly written services mmc because that's what people do all day long on their computers: resize list view columns in services.msc.

@Dexter:I guess you didn't watch the full video. Fast forward to 2:30 with the window controls benchmarks.

Regarding the 'ancient' APIs, I don't know if your aware of this, but most applications written for Windows don't use D2D to draw with. Most applications are using GDI to present their visuals (WM_ERASEBKGND and WM_PAINT with a DC). Part of the strength of Windows is all the software it runs, and all the compatibility it has with older applications, like those written in 1999 or 2002 etc. People don't want to throw away the majority of their applications. They'd much appreciate it if their applications ran better and not worse.

About a "poorly written services mmc", the problem also effects Windows explorer and many other applications link. As I said Microsoft should trim the fat and build some muscle. Read my previous posts for examples.

Edit, I thought I'd list some of the third party applications I use on my computer:

• Eclipse
• Microangelo
• Paintshop
• Textpad
• Gif Animator
• ConvertXtoDVD
• Lightscribe
• Handbrake
• CamStudio
• Audacity
• Sony Vegas
• Resource Hacker
• Cloudberry Explorer
• Filezilla

My guess is none of those applications are using WPF or D2D.