To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't understand this:
"Secondly, I simply juggle between a whole bunch of open windows constantly and often I have to see 4 windows simultaneously, ie. Metro simply wouldn't work at all for my needs."
How is it any different with W8? I have up to 15 windows open at a time... Eclipse, server window, SQL Developer, MYSQL Workbench, other editors, etc.
It's no different from W7?
Those 15 windows are in what is essentially a virtual operating system instance, but without any 'coherence' mode to integrate those into Metro. In other words, when you inevitably end up in Metro, you can't go straight to the window you want - you first need to switch to the desktop, and then find the window you want.
This is NOT, I repeat, THIS IS NOT the same as Windows 7. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
On top of that, the desktop is on its way out, quite clearly, even though Metro has lightyears to go before it's even 50% as functional as the desktop is now.
Edited 2012-05-31 17:25 UTC
"Secondly, I simply juggle between a whole bunch of open windows constantly and often I have to see 4 windows simultaneously, ie. Metro simply wouldn't work at all for my needs."
How is it any different with W8? I have up to 15 windows open at a time... Eclipse, server window, SQL Developer, MYSQL Workbench, other editors, etc.
It's no different from W7?
As I said, I was talking about Metro, ie. if the applications I used were Metro-applications. That is again in relation to the usefulness of Metro as a new concept: it doesn't provide me any benefit, only hindrance, and thus I'll be sticking to the "regular old desktop."
I'm not lambasting Windows 8 per se, I'm only questioning the usefulness of forcing Metro on people even when the old-style desktop would suit them better.
"I could use Windows 8 and its new, but I wouldn't be getting any actual benefit from using it."
Based on your comments, there is no actual LOSS either. It's just... different. (Not picking a fight with you... I was skeptical at first as well, and during the first week or so of using it I was put off. But I kept using it and suddenly it wasn't an issue anymore.)
[edit]
Scratch this. I responded above that I now understand what you are saying.
Edited 2012-05-31 17:39 UTC





Member since:
2006-02-15
I really can't see going back to a start menu button at this point. It has all become second nature to me.
I could use Windows 8 and its new, but I wouldn't be getting any actual benefit from using it.
For one I do not have any use whatsoever for small tiles with miniscule amounts of content which I cannot even modify but which still consume more space than simple icons and which serve as visual distractions.
Secondly, I simply juggle between a whole bunch of open windows constantly and often I have to see 4 windows simultaneously, ie. Metro simply wouldn't work at all for my needs.
Thirdly, as long as I can just pin all my most-used apps on the taskbar I wouldn't even see the Start-screen most of the time. But when I need something that isn't pinned it's much faster and less visually-and-conceptionally jarring to just pick it from a menu that covers barely 1/5th of the screen than from a screen that takes over the whole desktop.
That's mostly the issue I see: there is no gain in using the new screen. If there is no gain why can't I be allowed to skip it altogether?