Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Jan 2014 20:17 UTC

One more tidbit about Windows 8.1 Update 1 from my aforementioned source: Update 1 may feature some of the work that Microsoft has been doing behind the scenes to reduce further the memory and disk space requirements for Windows. This would allow Windows 8.1 Update 1 to run on cheaper small tablets.

Windows 8.1 Update 1, screen shots of which leaked earlier this week, is expected to allow users to pin Metro-style/Windows Store apps to their desktop task bars. Thumbnail previews of these Metro-style apps will be available from the Desktop task bar, according to additional screen shots. Windows 8.1 Update 1 also is expected to include close boxes for Metro-style apps.

Seems like some welcome changes, but it's going to take a lot more for people to warm up to Metro. The biggest problem to me is that since there aren't any compelling Metro applications, there's simply no reason to put with its idiosyncrasies, especially on desktops. I cannot think of a single Metro application that is better than its desktop counterpart, nor is there any Metro application that is better than similar applications on competing platforms.

Developers need users, and users need developers. Right now - Metro seems to lacks both.

Permalink for comment 581762
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by dpJudas on Mon 27th Jan 2014 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

I think the strategy was "make a shiny new API" which is the opposite of what made sense.

Microsoft always loves making new APIs, no doubt about that. However I think the motivation overall was a bit deeper than this.

The way I see it, one of the main lessons learned by Windows Mobile and the first iPhone was that simply shrinking a desktop UI to a small screen device produces a poor user experience. Apple deliberately wrote a different API for the iPhone (Cocoa Touch) because virtually none of the user interface concepts for a mouse work well for touch.

What I think Microsoft did wrong was to go completely overboard when copying this, and also not understand that a touch UI doesn't work well for a mouse either. Sharing the UI between desktop and touch makes very little sense.

It actually wasn't. Easy as possible would mean to open the full .NET framework. Sinofsky however was anti-.NET and refused to answer technical questions as to why he wanted WinRT apps to be separate.

Easy as possible within the constraints they had given themselves. Part of the problem with supporting the full .NET framework is that in a sense a large portion of it is a thin wrapper around Win32 functionality. So what they chose to do was to drop every part of .NET that relied on Win32. Otherwise they had to port themselves. ;)

In a way you could say they dropped support for so many things that their new OS wasn't really Windows anymore. Everyone had to port.

And Sinofsky wouldn't talk about that either. No .NET framework and yet Microsoft doesn't have to re-write Office (a Win32 application)? Yea those questions were deleted.

The fact that Microsoft has to make an exception for Office is half my point of my original post. When nobody can afford to port, then nobody will port and Microsoft ends up having no applications for their fancy new platform. No amount of patience or Microsoft money will help here.

Reply Parent Score: 2