Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:18 UTC
Windows In the article on Windows 8, I already mentioned that in order to demonstrate the viability of Metro for something other than Facebook and Twitter, Microsoft should come up with a Metro interface for Microsoft Office - one that doesn't leave out 90% of Office's features. Well, Microsoft has hinted that they are, indeed, working on Metro Office. In addition, it turns out Microsoft isn't entirely sure to how to address the issue if legacy applications on ARM.
Thread beginning with comment 489962
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by MacMan on Sat 17th Sep 2011 21:23 UTC
Member since:

I bet the same kind of person is bitching about Metro as those bitching about Gnome 3.

All these people bitch about "dumbed down" "dumbed down", well....

maybe its just DIFFERENT! maybe it DOES NOT LOOK LIKE WIN95!

So, you actually have to think about interacting with your machine differently than you did with Win95 and all the Win95 interface clones like Win2000/WinXP/Vista/7/KDE/Gnome2.x...

The impression I get of all these Metro / Gnome3 haters is that they are just afraid of change.

Now, I have not tried Metro, but I do like Win7 Phone, and I hugely like Gnome 3.1, in fact I like Gnome 3.1 a lot better than Lion, and I now pretty much use Gnome 3.1 as my full time desktop.

Edited 2011-09-17 21:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whiners!
by Anonymous Penguin on Sat 17th Sep 2011 22:02 in reply to "Whiners!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:

I bet the same kind of person is bitching about Metro as those bitching about Gnome 3.

So what? Metro, Gnome 3 (and KDE 4 for that matter) all belong to the same kind of crap: change just for the sake of it.
Imagine that applied to cars or houses, all of a sudden crazy designs with no thought to usability: how many do you think they would sell?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Whiners!
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 17th Sep 2011 22:04 in reply to "RE: Whiners!"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:

with that attitude we would all be using a terminal today.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Perhaps I was a bit harsh
by MacMan on Sat 17th Sep 2011 23:30 in reply to "Whiners!"
MacMan Member since:

Earlier, I said the Metro/Gnome3 haters were afraid of change, perhaps thats true, but consider this.

You have one group of interfaces that are all fundamentally Windows95 UI clones, this include Win2000/XP/Vista/7/KDE/Gnome2.x and to an extent OS/2 Warp4. I'll bet the people who really like this set of interfaces are people who's first computer experience was Windows 95. We tend to like what we first learn.

Now, whilst I may be in the minority here, I never liked Win95, in fact, I despised it. At the time (1995) I had an Amiga at home, and used a NeXTs and Suns at school. That might explain why I'm a huge Amiga/NeXT/BeOS and to an extent Mac fan, and why I liked Gnome 1.x but not Gnome 2.x.

Anyway, as I see it, we have the Windows95 based interfaces and non-Windows95 based interfaces. Metro/Gnome3 haters might just be fans of Windows 95 UIs and Metro/Gnome3 fans might never have cared for Windows95.

I for one am glad that FINALLY Windows95 is perhaps no longer the gold standard of user interfaces.

Edited 2011-09-17 23:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:

Where would you put people who believe that OS X is the best OS?
OS X is certainly not comparable to Metro or Gnome3.
And in which family of operating systems would you put OS X?
BTW I never used Windows 95, at the time I was refusing to use computers, I found them glorified typewriters.

Edited 2011-09-18 00:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Perhaps I was a bit harsh
by Alfman on Sun 18th Sep 2011 03:18 in reply to "Perhaps I was a bit harsh"
Alfman Member since:


I don't know why metro sympathizers (many who've never even tried it), keep coming back to "afraid of change" and "it DOES NOT LOOK LIKE WIN95!"? These statements attack the critic, but don't address the criticisms.

A single application interface could work very well for many people who don't use a computer for more than one task at a time...that includes my own parents. However the metro interface shown here is unnecessarily confusing and difficult to use on it's own terms. This has nothing to do with "win95", though there are a number of compatibility issues metro introduced quite unnecessarily. It's a garbage implementation of a potentially good idea.

Edit: Maybe they will fix metro based on all the negative feedback they get, however there is a lot not to like about metro as it stands. Maybe they won't fix it and just try to force it onto all of us instead. With microsoft, this isn't unheard of.

I find that functionally, but not aesthetically, metro seems to be a very distance descendant of the old DOSShell, which had the ability to switch between full screen dos programs (text and graphic) in much the same way metro does.

Edited 2011-09-18 03:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2