Windows 8 now available as Community Preview download

[FiggyG]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

In regards to how desktop programs will run on tablets...

Currently Tegra 3 (about as fast as a bottom end CORE 2 Duo) is as or more powerful CPU wise than the laptop I have Windows 8 installed on. Tegra 3s GPU is probably more powerful (at least more competent) than the IGP on the same laptop. By the time Windows 8 is launched ARM platforms will be even more powerful. Sure x86 chips are more powerful but ARM is powerful enough and way way more efficient.

Basically, the argument that Tablets aren't fast enough to handle real PC programs is total BS. Sure many programs will probably run terribly but they would have run terribly on a lot of mainstream laptops as well. Many others would probably run fine and those would be the ones that would get compiled for ARM.

If MS decided to not put a desktop on tablet computers it probably has more to avoid frustrated users trying to use mouse and keyboard apps on a tiny tablet. I would still really like to see ARM laptops,tablet/laptop hybrids, and phone/laptop hybrids with a full windows desktop (at least in laptop mode).

ARM has yet to catch up to Athlon XP performance, let alone Core2 single core. Their fastest dual-cores and slow quads are slowly catching up to ATOM, not close to Bobcat yet.

[Trunks0]

Ir wants more customization added to Metro. As right now there isn't much you can do to it. I'd like to have more control over colours, how applications are framed when I have multiple open and what I can launch from metro. I'd also like to see some integration with the desktop environment(think widgets/gadgets titles on the desktop)

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by Trunks0

Ir wants more customization added to Metro. As right now there isn't much you can do to it. I'd like to have more control over colours, how applications are framed when I have multiple open and what I can launch from metro. I'd also like to see some integration with the desktop environment(think widgets/gadgets titles on the desktop)

What do you mean about what you can "launch from metro". Can't you launch everything from metro that you could launch from the start menu?

Check out this post from the neighboring thread.

Originally Posted by fryjs

Another point: if you aren't on a tablet, there is no real reason to use the included tablet apps (they aren't conducive to multitasking). And if you aren't using them, remove them from the start screen and fill the start screen with desktop apps:


That's what I get when I press the windows key or use the start hot corner (the columns are my doing, can be used for categorisation), it works exactly like the start menu does now, but it has more things ready to be clicked on (you could fill out the whole screen, I just don't have any extra programs installed in the preview, and just used mostly admin tools to fill out what's in the pic).

Personally I think it looks good, and look forward the eventual beta on physical hardware to start using it extensively.

[Furious]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/h...27?tag=nl.e539

This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[Trunks0]

I mean add things myself. Things like games or other programs n' etc that I wish I could launch from Metro.

[fryjs]

Do you mean programs that aren't installed? (portable) As you can add any exe as a link on the start screen by right-clicking it in explorer and pressing pin-to-start.

Programs that install start menu shortcuts get automatically added to the start screen, and the apps list; you can right click and press pin-to-start from the app list also.

[Trunks0]

Ah! thx

[badboy]

http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2...sumer-preview/

The metro interface should NOT be there on pc's! Its a touch based UI!
I dont know wtf they were thinking

I have never complained about any new windows version except ME.
I loved all the others and have used all from win 3.11.

But the metro UI doesnt belong on pc's

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by badboy

http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2...sumer-preview/

The metro interface should NOT be there on pc's! Its a touch based UI!
I dont know wtf they were thinking

I have never complained about any new windows version except ME.
I loved all the others and have used all from win 3.11.

But the metro UI doesnt belong on pc's

That's the thing, it is not just a touch UI. It is a UI with large easy to target icons and hot corners that are faster and easier to hit with mouse or finger. It really isn't even the full UI. It is just a giant start screen that can hold more icons.

I hate having to repeat myself but you have to look beyond the funny colors that it comes with and see the big picture.

additional: The biggest problem with Metro isn't anything about the interface itself but how it is initially presented to users. Because it looks like a touch interface and we are all used to touch interfaces that is how people want to interact with it. On top of that MS loaded the Metro screen with tablet apps. It is more than that but the initial reaction of many PC users is just to flip out. It is readily apparent to me from past experience that as a group PC users don't like change.

I remember a lot of complaint about win 95 when it came out. A lot of fanatic PC users just wanted to stick with DOS. Then by the time windows 98 comes out they have cooled their heels. Windows XP really didn't change the UI that much and so everyone is cool with it. Then Vista gets everyone's panties in a bunch even though it really was an ok OS and brought several improvements. Then Win7 launches and everyone has cooled their heels again and laps it up. Now Metro made a big change to the start menu and a lot of us are freeeking out. I am not saying it is perfect. It just isn't really any worse than the old start menu and brings several advantages to the party.

[Melchior]

I find it easier to hit a big blue start bullseye than that little 4 pixel corner zone for the metro start screen. Same with the task switcher on the top left. Yes, it's in fullscreen I'm not making that judgement based on a windowed VM. The task switch/start menu switch would work better as the entire left side of the screen as an auto-hide panel, same with the charms bar on the right.

[noko]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

That's the thing, it is not just a touch UI. It is a UI with large easy to target icons and hot corners that are faster and easier to hit with mouse or finger. It really isn't even the full UI. It is just a giant start screen that can hold more icons.

I hate having to repeat myself but you have to look beyond the funny colors that it comes with and see the big picture.

additional: The biggest problem with Metro isn't anything about the interface itself but how it is initially presented to users. Because it looks like a touch interface and we are all used to touch interfaces that is how people want to interact with it. On top of that MS loaded the Metro screen with tablet apps. It is more than that but the initial reaction of many PC users is just to flip out. It is readily apparent to me from past experience that as a group PC users don't like change.

I remember a lot of complaint about win 95 when it came out. A lot of fanatic PC users just wanted to stick with DOS. Then by the time windows 98 comes out they have cooled their heels. Windows XP really didn't change the UI that much and so everyone is cool with it. Then Vista gets everyone's panties in a bunch even though it really was an ok OS and brought several improvements. Then Win7 launches and everyone has cooled their heels again and laps it up. Now Metro made a big change to the start menu and a lot of us are freeeking out. I am not saying it is perfect. It just isn't really any worse than the old start menu and brings several advantages to the party.

I can understand big blocks are easier for touch but a mouse is real accurate and fast with pin point accuracy. I do 3d modeling and vertex points, talking about a rather small object there is no problem selecting and editing. Saying a bigger box is easier to hit compared to a smaller box when you have a laser sight rifle doesn't hold up. It takes more time for me in Win 8 to hit that program box on the next page over in the Metro start menu then hitting that smaller box in the start menu in Win 7. In Win 8 I am wasting time LOOKING as in moving my eye to focus on each big box. Not everyting is focused on a big monitor - big ICONS with HUGE separations as in left to right or up and down are not all in focus - time is wasted looking around. A hand hold phone or pad more of the big boxes will be in focus since they will actually be small boxes on that small screen. Blowing them up even bigger instead of keeping them just as small on a small screen does not make them easier to hit with a mouse. I also am getting tired of repeating myself

[noko]

Originally Posted by Furious

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/h...27?tag=nl.e539

This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

He said much of what I said as well in feeling like two separate OS's tacked on plus the other stuff. This is not good for MS.

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by noko

I can understand big blocks are easier for touch but a mouse is real accurate and fast with pin point accuracy. I do 3d modeling and vertex points, talking about a rather small object there is no problem selecting and editing. Saying a bigger box is easier to hit compared to a smaller box when you have a laser sight rifle doesn't hold up. It takes more time for me in Win 8 to hit that program box on the next page over in the Metro start menu then hitting that smaller box in the start menu in Win 7. In Win 8 I am wasting time LOOKING as in moving my eye to focus on each big box. Not everyting is focused on a big monitor - big ICONS with HUGE separations as in left to right or up and down are not all in focus - time is wasted looking around. A hand hold phone or pad more of the big boxes will be in focus since they will actually be small boxes on that small screen. Blowing them up even bigger instead of keeping them just as small on a small screen does not make them easier to hit with a mouse. I also am getting tired of repeating myself

Maybe you should try bumping up mouse acceleration. The distance on a screen when using a mouse isn't physical. With a properly configured mouse the time it takes to hit a target has almost nothing to do with the distance between mouse and target. To me it sounds like your mouse sensitivity might be optimized for small targets because that was what you have had to deal with. Most people don't have that problem.

BTW I work with Vertexes and don't have a problem with them but that is different then launching an application. Vertexes have to be small for practical reasons. If they could be larger it would definitely make them easier to hit and is part of why I prefer to work on a larger monitor than a smaller one.

[noko]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

Maybe you should try bumping up mouse acceleration. The distance on a screen when using a mouse isn't physical. With a properly configured mouse the time it takes to hit a target has almost nothing to do with the distance between mouse and target. To me it sounds like your mouse sensitivity might be optimized for small targets because that was what you have had to deal with. Most people don't have that problem.

BTW I work with Vertexes and don't have a problem with them but that is different then launching an application. Vertexes have to be small for practical reasons. If they could be larger it would definitely make them easier to hit and is part of why I prefer to work on a larger monitor than a smaller one.

Still a mouse can be pixel accurate and big icons are really not needed with a pointing device. Another aspect is a mouse is way more accurate then a touch screen. Try to draw or manipulate vertex points with a touch screen or draw pixels . I really need to work more with Win 8, been playing around with my new 27" monitor which in on my Win 7 machine. I too rather work on a larger monitor as well.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

It is readily apparent to me from past experience that as a group PC users don't like change

Then you'd be wrong. I'd say as a group PC users like change as long as it is for the better. I look forward to patches and driver updates, etc. because most of the time it's fixing a bug or making a game faster.

This is more a matter of taste than anything else. You can talk about this or that aspect of it until you're blue in the face but many still won't like it. I can't see myself ever liking it. I'm hoping that, at least on a PC, I'll be able to turn the damned thing off.

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by Furious

Then you'd be wrong. I'd say as a group PC users like change as long as it is for the better. I look forward to patches and driver updates, etc. because most of the time it's fixing a bug or making a game faster.

This is more a matter of taste than anything else. You can talk about this or that aspect of it until you're blue in the face but many still won't like it. I can't see myself ever liking it. I'm hoping that, at least on a PC, I'll be able to turn the damned thing off.

When I browse forums it seems like change is the number 1 complaint. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is for the better or not. People just like stuff to stay where it is cause that is how they are used to it.

You see this behavior everywhere. It must be part of the human genome. As an example, just think about how difficult it was to get people to start using seat belts, stop lynching other people because the color of their skin, letting women vote, getting doctors to wash their hands before surgery... I can go on and on and on forever with this stuff. People just don't like new things.

Best I can tell is that 99% of people's reaction to the Metro interface is based on the way it looks when you first login and not it's actual utility vs the start menu. People don't like it cause it looks different than what they are used to. I had that exact initial reaction myself. When you sit down and write all the pros and cons of how it really compares to the start menu (larger icons or not) it pretty much wins hands down.

I just haven't seen a real argument of why the startmenu is better than Metro. Just complaining about Metro completely misses the point. You have to compare it's utility to the function it replaces.

[noko]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

When I browse forums it seems like change is the number 1 complaint. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is for the better or not. People just like stuff to stay where it is cause that is how they are used to it.

You see this behavior everywhere. It must be part of the human genome. As an example, just think about how difficult it was to get people to start using seat belts, stop lynching other people because the color of their skin, letting women vote, getting doctors to wash their hands before surgery... I can go on and on and on forever with this stuff. People just don't like new things.

Best I can tell is that 99% of people's reaction to the Metro interface is based on the way it looks when you first login and not it's actual utility vs the start menu. People don't like it cause it looks different than what they are used to. I had that exact initial reaction myself. When you sit down and write all the pros and cons of how it really compares to the start menu (larger icons or not) it pretty much wins hands down.

I just haven't seen a real argument of why the startmenu is better than Metro. Just complaining about Metro completely misses the point. You have to compare it's utility to the function it replaces.

Actually us PC users do changes all the time, from hardware to software and endorse it when the change are useful. For example we don't play the same game or even game types and most games are significantly different from one another. The issue is not the change in the game but how well a game works out and plays. PC users are well more versed to change then let say Apple Mac users.

Metro:
1 - Has fewer abilities then the Start menu
2 - Pans multiple pages where the Start menu does it in one expanding container
3 - Start menu is editable in explorer - Metro?
4 - Metro requires odd ball corner activation for pop ups, charm menu's to get to items readily available on a Start menu
5 - Start menu is part of your working desktop and works with it - Metro wipes the whole monitor clean with; and your right, big bulky ugly icons or big boxes and tiny little icons inside .
6 - Has no window ability, multiple programs do not work inside of Metro - A metro clock, a metro calculator, metro weather report and so on will each take up a full screen, even 2560x1600 worth and not share all the un-used space with anything else. Also consuming that full screen memory space as well The desktop could contain all of those on the same page with quick access as needed.
7. Metro apps are utterly serial in nature - All or nothing - Sharing?

As said above, change is very welcomed if it is a good change. So far I don't see the benefits of Metro on the PC. Just my view at this point in time.

[andino]

http://www.techspot.com/news/47801-f...ws-8-blog.html

[TenFour]

After playing around with Windows 8 for a while, here are my thoughts:

Lack of Start Menu is a minor annoyance that will take getting used to. I'm not sure yet if it would take more clicks for some tasks than Windows 7 after I'm used to it.

The main problem I see is actually just that they're creating this huge distinction between Metro apps and desktop apps. If they want this to take off on tablets, they need to blur the distinction so there's a common task manager and possibly a toggle for each app that can switch to a more touch-friendly UI. And they should have found a way to toggle the desktop interface such that traditional apps enlarge their buttons in a touch-friendly manner.

Then developers would only have one platform to target. Much easier to get developers to start using the new metro UI appearance in all their apps than it is to get them to develop separate desktop and metro apps. The way it is now, developers will only make Metro apps if they're convinced they can sell Metro apps.

This isn't a problem that will affect desktop users--we'll all just ignore the Metro apps. It's a problem for Microsoft getting any market penetration with tablets. Developers aren't going to get excited about developing Metro apps until they know there's a significant user base out there, and there won't be a significant user base unless there are apps to use.

The one advantage that Microsoft has over Palm's WebOS and over their own Windows Phone 7 in the phone arena is that they already have a core OS that has millions of available apps. But they have completely failed to take advantage of this because they are creating such a distinction between desktop and metro apps.

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by TenFour

This isn't a problem that will affect desktop users--we'll all just ignore the Metro apps. It's a problem for Microsoft getting any market penetration with tablets. Developers aren't going to get excited about developing Metro apps until they know there's a significant user base out there, and there won't be a significant user base unless there are apps to use.

Not debating whether it is gonna be successful or not but this is what I think they are thinking.

A lot of the people who buy crud "ultrabooks" with tiny low res screens and slow processors aren't going to want more than one and 1/5th things (see Metro Snap) on the screen at once. These people are going to still want to shift quickly and simply between programs and Metro still does that.

For example, when my wife users her laptop she typically has a browser open full screen. If she wants to view a PDF she switches to that full screen. If she wants to type a document she switches to Word at full screen. The most important thing to her is how easily she can switch between these tasks at full screen. She and those like her are the market for Metro Apps.

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by noko

Actually us PC users do changes all the time, from hardware to software and endorse it when the change are useful. For example we don't play the same game or even game types and most games are significantly different from one another. The issue is not the change in the game but how well a game works out and plays. PC users are well more versed to change then let say Apple Mac users.

Metro:
1 - Has fewer abilities then the Start menu

please elaborate as my interpretation of "abilities" says this is not actually true.

2 - Pans multiple pages where the Start menu does it in one expanding container

I never liked the expanding container and how the way things pops up depends on where you are in the menu, how there is a delay for a tree to open, or how it is never sorted the way I want

3 - Start menu is editable in explorer - Metro?

Metro is editable in Metro and anything can be added to it from the right click menu in explorer

4 - Metro requires odd ball corner activation for pop ups, charm menu's to get to items readily available on a Start menu

What in paticular are you talking about? Many of those things are available from the bottom left corner right click menu. I also don't see what you mean by "oddball". Please be specific.

5.1 - Start menu is part of your working desktop and works with it -

The Start menu automatically closes whenever you go to anything else on the computer. It often covers stuff on the screen, especially on computers with low res screens. I don't like how if my hand slips all the containers snap close and I have to start again. I don't see how it is part of the working desktop cause you can't work with it open.

5.2Metro wipes the whole monitor clean with; and your right, big bulky ugly icons or big boxes and tiny little icons inside .

The fact that it "wipes the monitor clean" I consider a good thing as I don't need to see anything else while I am trying to launch a program. Leaves more space for icons. Sure, it would be better if the icon size was adjustable.

6 - Has no window ability, multiple programs do not work inside of Metro - A metro clock, a metro calculator, metro weather report and so on will each take up a full screen, even 2560x1600 worth and not share all the un-used space with anything else. Also consuming that full screen memory space as well The desktop could contain all of those on the same page with quick access as needed.

If a Metro app is not useful to you then don't use it. There are plenty of unused programs on most peoples computers. For example, I don't enjoy using IE or playing Hearts on the computer. I just ignore them.

7. Metro apps are utterly serial in nature - All or nothing - Sharing?

As I said in the post before this. I believe Metro apps are primarily designed for people who have small screens and pretty much just use one app at a time anyway. I assume copy and paste and other functions still work and programs can still grind away in the background. At any rate as for number 6, if you don't like them you don't have to use them.

As said above, change is very welcomed if it is a good change. So far I don't see the benefits of Metro on the PC. Just my view at this point in time.

Everyone is welcome to have an opinion. They just need to recognize that it is only an opinion. Whether or not Metro is good or bad overall should be determined as analytically as possible. When we see new things our gut reactions can often mislead us.

The biggest problem with Metro is that what makes it good is not intuitive. At the same time, it is very loud and in your face. I don't think people like that kind of behavior.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by andino

http://www.techspot.com/news/47801-f...ws-8-blog.html

That video is priceless, especially the last 10 seconds.

Here's the rub. When you're creating a market you want your customers to get used to how things work with your product. You want them to think "That's the way it's supposed to be." Since Windows 95 the PC has basically worked the same way with some internal changes. But a user used to 95 could sit down on a Windows 7 machine and not be totally and completely lost. Companies spend millions and billions of dollars trying to create a market and dominate it.

What would Mac users do if Apple decided to totally change the user interface? It wouldn't be pretty and it would be a stupid business move on Apple's part considering how they've gotten their users used to how things work on a Mac.

Granny is going to sit down at her brand new Windows 8 PC and say basically the same thing the guy said at the end of the video.

Really really REALLY dumb move Microsoft.

[bobvodka]

Originally Posted by TenFour

But they have completely failed to take advantage of this because they are creating such a distinction between desktop and metro apps.

And for good reason; the API used to write Metro apps is significantly different from the 'normal' application APIs; this has been done on purpose to support the deployment of those applications on both x64 and ARM systems.

None of the old Win32 API (which every program in the last 15 years of windows development has been built on) is going to work on ARM systems, so this is a breaking change by design - and this is a good thing as x86/x64 Windows has a MASSIVE legacy to support which you don't want on a new system.

End of the day MOST people aren't multi-monitor multi-program running people so Metro and Metro's way of doing thing would suit them better; I've not used it enough to comment on the aspect of multi-monitor/program usage however. So while there are a few videos floating about of people going 'eh?' the fact is a few users being confused ISNT statically significant data - for all we know MS have done larger scale testing internally which gave different results (aka "75% of people found it easier to use" or somethiing like that). Heck, they might even consider this a 'trial run' and use the feedback to refine for Win9 going forward.

I guess my point is you don't get anywhere being conservative and while I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) to like the OS the old adage that "The plural of anecdote is not data" can be applied here as to the choices made in the UI of the OS.

[noko]

Originally Posted by Furious

That video is priceless, especially the last 10 seconds.

Here's the rub. When you're creating a market you want your customers to get used to how things work with your product. You want them to think "That's the way it's supposed to be." Since Windows 95 the PC has basically worked the same way with some internal changes. But a user used to 95 could sit down on a Windows 7 machine and not be totally and completely lost. Companies spend millions and billions of dollars trying to create a market and dominate it.

What would Mac users do if Apple decided to totally change the user interface? It wouldn't be pretty and it would be a stupid business move on Apple's part considering how they've gotten their users used to how things work on a Mac.

Granny is going to sit down at her brand new Windows 8 PC and say basically the same thing the guy said at the end of the video.

Really really REALLY dumb move Microsoft.

I watched also another video, it was right on the target in showing how confusing non-prompted Win8 interface with hidden menu's, buttons etc. are for even seasoned users of previous windows. First reactions are rather telling too.

How do you make new groups in Metro?

In a group when I move a icon over on a column within a group it automatically moves other icons around .

How can I rearrange my icons how I want inside of a group?

Still can't get that menu on top of Metro. Should I search for hours for some hidden button, key combination etc.?

How do I set properties for the Metro Icons? Switches for programs?

The more I tinker with Metro the more frustrating it becomes. Seems like I was able to change the background color, I wanted to delete one of the Metro programs and it uninstalled three . When you unpin from start menu the icon disappears, where does it go? How do I get it back, what directory? No info on the icons for file location for metro programs.

Extremely non-intuitive with secret menu's switches and flipping from one page to the next for different settings with utterly different dis-orientating pages.

Funny one must have the simple big icon for fast selection of a program (but in reality not so fast) but the other stuff have menu's Ahmmm the older Start menu just took you to those menu's even faster on a consistent interface. Even funnier is right clicking start pixel (no button) just one pixel (I thought big was better for targets, oh wait it is a corner) gives you, guess what A BIG MENU window, no visuals just words now I really wanted to put a big F in there but. . .

Frankly that team should be fired, educated idiots from bigger idiots. Did that team want to have folks find hidden treasures in the OS like a treasure hunt? Oh look what I found, you must be dumb not finding that. Who knows, just very frustrated with it.

480p video won't scale to full page, 720 and up does but not the lower resolutions turns into a garble mess, maybe a driver issue here.

[noko]

Originally Posted by bobvodka

And for good reason; the API used to write Metro apps is significantly different from the 'normal' application APIs; this has been done on purpose to support the deployment of those applications on both x64 and ARM systems.

None of the old Win32 API (which every program in the last 15 years of windows development has been built on) is going to work on ARM systems, so this is a breaking change by design - and this is a good thing as x86/x64 Windows has a MASSIVE legacy to support which you don't want on a new system.

End of the day MOST people aren't multi-monitor multi-program running people so Metro and Metro's way of doing thing would suit them better; I've not used it enough to comment on the aspect of multi-monitor/program usage however. So while there are a few videos floating about of people going 'eh?' the fact is a few users being confused ISNT statically significant data - for all we know MS have done larger scale testing internally which gave different results (aka "75% of people found it easier to use" or somethiing like that). Heck, they might even consider this a 'trial run' and use the feedback to refine for Win9 going forward.

I guess my point is you don't get anywhere being conservative and while I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) to like the OS the old adage that "The plural of anecdote is not data" can be applied here as to the choices made in the UI of the OS.

Most not using multi-monitor is probably true but there are many that do for production reasons. So dropping that ability or hindering it because not everyone uses it is poor judgment. Please do try it out, I am just utterly frustrated with it at this point. Seems extremely limiting at this point in time. There are too many things I do that will probably never work well on a tablet, so forcing me to conform to a tablet method on a desktop does not seem like a good idea.

I need to find out what can be done with metro vice constantly finding out things I cannot do. A good video in how to work the metro interface would probably help.

[aviphysics]

Originally Posted by Furious

What would Mac users do if Apple decided to totally change the user interface? It wouldn't be pretty and it would be a stupid business move on Apple's part considering how they've gotten their users used to how things work on a Mac.

Do you remember what they said when OSX launched... I do. There was also a lot of complaining about the latest OSX version and when they dropped support for classic Mac software. Really, it doesn't seem to have been a big problem for Apple in the long run.

[aviphysics]

They will have to do something to retrain users. I expect to see a lot of pop ups. The people who are gonna be in trouble are the ones that skip the guided tour. Those people deserve what they get.

The earth shall be inherited by those that read the manual!

[Furious]

Originally Posted by aviphysics

Do you remember what they said when OSX launched... I do. There was also a lot of complaining about the latest OSX version and when they dropped support for classic Mac software. Really, it doesn't seem to have been a big problem for Apple in the long run.

It would've been had they tried to slap Metro over top of OSX! LOL! Of course Apple's not that stupid.

[bobvodka]

Originally Posted by noko

Most not using multi-monitor is probably true but there are many that do for production reasons. So dropping that ability or hindering it because not everyone uses it is poor judgment. Please do try it out, I am just utterly frustrated with it at this point. Seems extremely limiting at this point in time. There are too many things I do that will probably never work well on a tablet, so forcing me to conform to a tablet method on a desktop does not seem like a good idea.

Well, I've given it a quick go using VMware set to use multiple monitors.

For the most part it works basically the same as Win7 when you are at the desktop, the two differences being;
1) Metro start screen takes up all of your primary monitor but the secondary still shows windows as normal
2) task bars on both screens by default

UI wise;
- Win8 hot corners only work on the primary monitor
- Metro apps can only be docked at the side of the primary monitor

Really, from a quick look, the only difference is you lose the primary monitor when hitting 'start', which might well annoy people (probably myself included, this is only a quick test after all); if there was a way to make it open the start screen only on the side of the monitor, like a docked metro app, then that would be my only complaint taken care of based on this quick test.

For the most part however it is business as normal multi-monitor wise.

[spyre]

Try it in Eyefinity and Metro takes up all 3 screens. Worthless.