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 489984
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh
by MacMan on Sat 17th Sep 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "Whiners!"
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[2]: Perhaps I was a bit harsh
by MacMan on Sun 18th Sep 2011 02:32 in reply to "RE: Perhaps I was a bit harsh"
MacMan 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?

Actually, I think Gnome3 has some similarities with OSX, namely the dock.

No, I don't think OSX is in the Win95 family of interfaces, OSX is obviously a blend of Mac Classic and NeXT, and oddly enough, I liked both of them better than OSX:) (from a UI standpoint).

Mac fans are an eclectic bunch, sadly many of them are "hipsters", the iPod generation that follow anything Apple says because iPods cool.

I'm Mac fan (with reservations), I've been using Apples since the Apple ][. I'm not particularly happy with OSX Lion, like I said, I switched over mostly to Gnome3. Again, I like a lot of things about Gnome3, but it still has some obvious issues.

Frankly, the OSs I've liked best of all are NeXT, BeOS and Amiga. Sadly, I think OSX has gone downhill since it was NeXT, and with Lion, seems to be accelerating.

Edited 2011-09-18 02:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

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