Metro Style apps vs Windows apps

Okay, Kazu; now I understand.

I disagree that Windows developers do not understand the "old" (current) Windows interface but it is not important; we can agree to disagree.

Many companies are like that in the sense of marketing influencing how things are done technically. IBM is definitely like that.

I agree with the comment that Marketing people have too much influence in Microsoft development. While Google has too much influence from Developers. I think metro UI is an extension of Windows Phone UI. It is definitely not like iPhone or iPad. 

I think Microsoft needs visionaries, not copycats. 

Senthilkumar, to the extent that Windows 8 for the desktop has features that have previously been used only in phones and tablets, I think the Microsoft marketing people are having too much of an influence on the product. Also, to the extent that Metro only supports use of one application at a time for the user, Microsoft is following the wrong leader. Microsoft could give Metro a significant advantage over the others if Metro could be designed to allow the user to use multiple applications at a time in all environments, desktops, tables and phones; at least within criteria they design.

Kazu, I do not understand:

having trouble understanding "old" windows

Do you mean the Windows UI at the user level or the Windows API as Windows API programmers or do you mean the Windows API as .Net programmers?

When saying that developers do not fully appreciate metro, I did not mean you do not have an experience of Windows on the user level. I was simply stating that somebody that was having trouble understanding "old" windows will appreciate the new interface more than somebody with a complete understanding of it. It was not meant to be a critical statement, simply an explanation as to why Microsoft made this change.

Hi,

I am not sure about this.

The Metro was created (may be copied the patient) to compete with iphone and google andriod  mobile. Nokia in deep trouble with their updates and sales. Microsoft may realized the importance of Metro (massive hit in market) and they need to compete with google and want to generate the revenue through Nokia.

Thats why microsoft and nokia joined together for windows phone...

At the same time when ever microsoft copy from others, they will add some additional features on top of it.

This time it came with metro in windows and web.

Because they need some thing for the PC tablets. I asked the same questions to the microsoft and nokia guy in microsoft teched event recently held in bangalore. They were laughed...

Kazu, what do you know about Windows at the developer level? You should be careful about saying things like "people on coding websites like this to not fully appreciate" as if we do not know how Windows works at the user level. Please be careful about saying things like that as a new person in a community such as this; in most other communities, you will likely be called a troll if you make critical statements like that as a new person.

I am new here, but I still think I should post my two-cents on this.

First off, the metro interface far surpasses traditional Windows for 90% of uses. Microsoft knew what they were doing with this one - the problem with the "old" Windows is that there was too much "stuff" for people to worry about. Something with this much "stuff" will (1) run slower, (2) be more complicated to learn and (3) not work so well on mobile devices. So, they created Windows 8 and metro to fix these problems.

I fully suspect that people on coding websites like this to not fully appreciate the value of Metro. To put it plainly, neither did I when I first downloaded Windows 8 Customer Preview. But then what happened was I showed it to some of my not-too-computer-savvy friends. Basically, I never had to explain anything other than "windows button brings you home, right click on any app to view options. Once I said that ONCE, they understood the interface completely. All the bells and whistles of old windows confused them, and they thought of multi-tasking as a bell and/or whistle. They quickly found out that if they moved their mouse to the top corner they could see all the apps they have open and if they moved their mouse to the bottom right they could see the "charms." It all was very intuitive to them. They never wanted to leave the mode.

However, Metro does have some problems.

From what I see, they are mainly small and can be fixed relatively easily IMO. The trick will be to better integrate the "old" windows with metro. You see, soon my friends wanted to know if normal windows apps (.exe) could still be run. Of course I told them that they could, and I demonstrated by having them click on one of the office buttons in my Start menu. This brought them out of metro mode and into desktop. This did not really confuse them, except they did say they were not too happy about it. It still felt like an app though, because windows key still brought them "home." Microsoft should at least make its every day programs such as Office and Internet Explorer with Flash work in metro. They already have done it with Outlook (although it is not called outlook). I see no reason why they cannot do it with the others. This did not become a big issue however. Soon however, they realized that they could not "switch back" to those programs by moving their mouse to upper-left-hand-corner. They could only switch back to desktop mode in general, and then they had to use the "old" and "confusing" windows taskbar to navigate back to those "apps." This should not work this way. All applications, even normal Windows Applications, should appear when moving your mouse to the bottom left-hand or top left-hand corners. You should even be able to place them next to each other in the same manner. If they did this, which appears really quite simple, they could put off making metro versions of the every-day apps for a really long time, something which will probably make them happy.

Thus, the problems with Metro is not a problem with the interface itself, but rather with the way the interface interacts with the old. They have made metro a lot easier to use for non-techies, but if you have to open up more than one "old" Windows Application, the advantage is destroyed and if anything it complicates the experience.

This is all completely assuming developers will put up with Microsoft's "shop rules" etc... which I suspect they will. But before worrying about that, Microsoft should at least make the second change I have highlighted in bold, hopefully in the actual release version of Windows 8.

Just my two cents.

I think that web site does not have a good editor; the articles says "apps" instead of applicaitons. Or maybe they have a great editor and I am just too picky.

I think the article clearly explains what Metro Style Applications are for people taht understand what they are. As someone that is not yet familiar with Metro Style Applications the article does not help me.

Perhaps I can understand better if I read between the lines. It says they're "touch first", so I assume we must have a (I forget what they are called) monitor that reacts to touch. I think that is a lousy idea. The reaqson for using for tablets and cell phones is due to limited space. I think that tablet and cell phone technology is not necessarily best for desktop computers. Do you really think it is better to say "u" for "you" and "4" for "for", as is done for text messaging?

Microsoft has a tenency to swing too far. If I understand what the article is saying, Metro Style applications will hide most controls. This is an over-reaction to Microsoft's bad practice of filling up space with a lot of big toolbars and other things.

The article says something about an "App Bar" but it is not clear what that is. Yes, the article thinks it is describing what an App Bar is, but based on what it says, all controls for every application is expected to exist in the one App Bar for th whole system and the App Bar has room for only a maximum of 12 buttons. That does not seem correct but that is what the article is saying.

The article says that "animation is utterly necessary" for Metro Style applications. The article might be totally clear about that, but if so then Metro Style applications are impractical. They obviously are designed to look impresssive but I read nothing indicating they add more function.

In the third part of the article it says "Users will never actually close apps" .... "later Windows will suspend the previous app". Unless the article is misleading, I think that is very bad. Non-programmers do not like that cell phones and tablets do not allow them to "multiitask" and Metro Style applications seem to be retro-fitting single-tasking to desktop computers. Really? If so then I expect Metro Style applications to be a failure.

So Metro Style applications are touchy-feeling things that sweep all the useful stuff under the rug. Do I understand correctly?