1 hour ago, bystander wrote
Also, as other people have said, installing desktop apps just dumps a boatload of small icons on the start screen. Those icons don't belong there. They are not tiles. Let's recognize this fact and come up with a concept that deals with the clutter.
Finally, it is true that the sample Metro apps suck big time. I have no doubt that they will be refined and in the end will look good. But Microsoft should have put more effort into these, rather than bragging that development is so easy that interns wrote them. Guess what: it shows. And it hurts the image of your product.
the way i see the icons this is one of the places that are really junk -- windows 95/xp/7 icons do not look right on the metro start screen at all. problem is how to even try and get new graphics for *HUNDREDS* of old apps to look good on the new screen ??
and yes the preview apps have the look and feel of a rush job.... sending that out en-masse to the public is something i just can not even imagine.... why Microsoft did you do that ?
It seems like they want a new image but the one they are creating is *WORSE* than the one they had in my view. disjointed, klugy , ugly mismatched.... in the end we have an OS that is a mix of:
WIndows 3.1, windows 95, windows 2000, windows xp, WIndows Vista and WIndows 7 with some Windows Phone on top all smashed into one box and trying to come off as one look but failing badly.
I am not a designer but I can see many many issues with this mash up they have created.
they should have done two seperate SKU's / versions:
let each one focus on it's own area.
WIndows 8, the upgrade for the desktop user.
Windows Metro, the new OS for new Tablet based Devices.
why did they not do this ? they still could share most of the same code inside the builds ....
but given users a good and clear choice in what OS to buy based on what the user wants to do.