To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not quite true, Metro is microsofts advance into the territory of touch applications so not really trying to fix what wasn't broken. what ISN'T good about metro is that it isn't at this point in time really well suited to large or multi-monitor desktop configurations. If you use it on a tablet, for which metro was intended, it's fine.
I dispute the " If you use it on a tablet, for which metro was intended, it's fine." Admittedly, what I assumed after being taken aback by what a kludge it was on the desktop but after tinkering with 'Metro' I quickly found it half-baked and not ready. The few apps are really piss-poor and although I expect it to improve it really shouldn't be brought to market yet.
Luckily, it easy enough to install a classic start menu and just about ignore 'Metro' on the desktop. Still, it's really only a worthwhile service pack to 7 or if this is what a new OS is then for all the time and monies expended you wonder why they bothered. Not exactly a must have update...wouldn't even consider if it wasn't on 'offer'...suppose a cheap way to upgrade from XP but otherwise a damp squib.
I have used Metro on a phone and it was horrid. I'd actually prefer Windows Mobile over anything with Metro on. However given a choice, I'd pick Android, iOS or even Palm/HP webOS over Win8.
Kudos to Redmond for investing in a unique user environment; it's just a pity it sucks.
Other fixing of unbroken things throughout history:
Mr Ugg Caveman fixed the unbroken process of walking with the wheel.
I guess the lesson we're trying to teach is never to try different things we never tried before unless we know that it works because no one likes exploration and discovery.
The only people in the world that are divinely allowed to fix what isn't broken are people dressed in faggy black turtlenecks with anger issues.
So, tell me. What does Modern UI fix on the desktop that needed fixing badly? What is the wow factor of merging (and oversizing of) icons with desktop widgets and displaying these full-screen in a grid? What is so much better about a view-switching, full-screen cluttered program launcher over a non-view-switching but slightly cluttered start menu?
Then we have the sudden fascination with hot corners. Unholy, undiscoverable pixels, that elevate the least exiting screen areas to god like status. Now we will be jamming our pointer into corners for all eternity. Don't give me the Superkey comeback. Typing to control your computer is CLI and CLI is bad; millions of Windows users said so.
Aesthetically we can't claim objectivity, but I don't like the simplistic flatness and the garish color schemes of Modern UI one bit. Minimalism done right can be eye pleasing. Personally, I lean more towards Baroque than Bauhaus, but I can appreciate a good, minimal, clean design, even if I'd never pursue it myself. Modern UI looks like it was whipped up by a three year old in MS Paint.





Member since:
2006-02-16
Microsoft decided to fix what isn't broken by introducing Metro.
Only true problem with original start menu was that explorer was too heavy because of all the legacy code hanging out in the background.