Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Aug 2015 23:18 UTC
Windows This hit the news yesterday.

Microsoft released Windows 10 four weeks ago today, and now the company is providing a fresh update on its upgrade figures. 14 million machines had been upgraded to Windows 10 within 24 hours of the operating system release last month, and that figure has now risen to more than 75 million in just four weeks.

As somebody who uses Windows every day, and who upgraded to Windows 10 a few weeks before it was released, let me make a statement about all the positive Windows 10 reviews that not everyone is going to like. There are only two reasons Windows 10 is getting positive reviews. First, because it's free. This one's a given. Second, and more importantly: Windows 10 is getting positive reviews because none of the reviewers have forced themselves to use nothing but Metro applications.

Here's the cold and harsh truth as I see it: despite all the promises, Metro applications are still complete and utter garbage. Let me explain why.

Thread beginning with comment 616831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What a weird article Thom
by avgalen on Fri 28th Aug 2015 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE: What a weird article Thom"
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

Okay, I read your article again. This time I focused more on your headline and your statement "Here's the cold and harsh truth as I see it: despite all the promises, Metro applications are still complete and utter garbage. Let me explain why."
Now a proper headline for that would have been "Metro: it's always the next version", but instead you wrote "Windows" and then talked about Windows reviews in your opening paragraph.

Now if you wanted to write a detailed article about how Metro isn't improving you could have talked about developers targeting common platforms (which is not Metro) or the 4 bridges (Web/Android/IOS/Win32) that Microsoft is building and releasing in the next 6 months. That would have actually nicely fitted with your "It is always the next version" statement.

Nobody (except sales andd marketing departments ;) ) is claiming that Metro is a well developed eco-system. The whole reason behind Windows 10 being free is actually to create enough traction to finally start creating this eco-system.

And for the record, I didn't say your POINT (argument/statement/conclusion) was 3 and 7, I said your POINTS (examples/discussion points) were 3 and 7 and 12 which they clearly are.
You are also claiming that the desktop part has hardly improved since Windows 7 which is nonsense (see another post of me in this thread: http://www.osnews.com/thread?616816)

The next version will always claim to be better than the current version. No current version is perfect. Some technologies will die a (sometimes well-deserved) certain death, but Metro is not a bad technology or idea in its core. If developers, including those at Microsoft, are finally going to embrace it remains to be seen but the tech doesn't seem to be the limitation.

Enjoy using this new OS with your older programs for now and hopefully add some Metro apps in the future when they are ready. I think that we can agree that this is the way to make working with Windows 10 productive and sane.
Stop confusing the OS and the included tech with the apps that are running on top of it, that is not what we expect from OSNews

Reply Parent Score: 2

dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

The next version will always claim to be better than the current version. No current version is perfect. Some technologies will die a (sometimes well-deserved) certain death, but Metro is not a bad technology or idea in its core. If developers, including those at Microsoft, are finally going to embrace it remains to be seen but the tech doesn't seem to be the limitation.

I'm not sure I agree that Metro is a good idea in its core. So far it had three years to prove itself with very limited success. Virtually no developers opted for the "great" value proposition that Microsoft can grab 30% of the profits in exchange of you rewriting your entire application.

What I've seen so far in Visual Studio 2015 there's nothing to indicate anything has changed: Microsoft still wants everyone to rewrite their UIs from scratch. Will the "4 bridges" be the solution? I guess the "next version" will tell. ;)

Stop confusing the OS and the included tech with the apps that are running on top of it, that is not what we expect from OSNews

There is no confusion. Microsoft themselves marketed heavily that Universal Apps (that's Metro, you know) was the main new feature of Windows 10. Your apps will run everywhere - on your phone, tablet, desktop, xbox and that headset device. It is how the future of the OS is meant to look and function.

The apps actually being part of this vision are all more or less a train wreck on Windows 10 launch day. Heck, they couldn't even finish their new control panel! If Microsoft themselves can't get their Metro apps working properly, why should any 3rd party developer pay any attention to it?

Reply Parent Score: 4

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

If you think that Metro is about rewriting the UI of an application while keeping the inside the same you would be wrong. That would be like saying iOS applications are OSX Applications with a rewritten UI or Android Apps are Linux Applications with a rewritten UI.
I don't know if it is possible to write "mega-applications" like PhotoShop in a Universal App. So far I haven't found anything like that and I don't know of any developer that is trying to do that. Store-Apps seem to be all about "Make a nice looking, easy to use program that solves 80% of the problems of 80% of the users". And just like on most new platforms there is a lot of UI-experimentation going on. It takes time for good UI ideas to surface and become common and for bad ideas to disappear (20 years later the web still looks inconsistent)

I completely agree that Metro is an unfullfilled promise. Not because there is anything wrong with it technically, but simply because app-developers didn't develop apps for it. Why didn't they? Because you develop apps for users and only a small percentage of users can run Store-Apps while everyone can run Desktop-Apps. What will fix Metro is not the next version but having hundreds of millions of potential users to attract dev-love.


There is no confusion. Microsoft themselves marketed heavily that Universal Apps (that's Metro, you know) was the main new feature of Windows 10. Your apps will run everywhere - on your phone, tablet, desktop, xbox and that headset device. It is how the future of the OS is meant to look and function.

Clearly Universal Apps are a big thing to Microsoft, but it is not the main new feauture for them. Have a look at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows or http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/features and you will see that "being familiar" and "being a better Windows 7 than Windows 7" are actually the main points: "Familiar and better than ever. Windows 10 is familiar and easy to use, with lots of similarities to Windows 7 including the Start menu. It starts up and resumes fast, has more built-in security to help keep you safe, and is designed to work with software and hardware you already have." You see? No mention of Universal Apps at all in there.

they couldn't even finish their new control panel! If Microsoft themselves can't get their Metro apps working properly, why should any 3rd party developer pay any attention to it?

Because Microsoft doesn't get the development tools much before others anymore. They might be a couple of months ahead, but you and I basically have the same tools at our disposal as the developers at Microsoft. And the new control panel looks finished to me. In the 8.1 era I hardly used it because control panel was clearly the place to go. In Windows 10 I was surprised to see myself using the new "System Settings" instead of Control Panel. Control Panel is still there, just like IE11 is still there for people that really need it...I just haven't really needed it.

Edited 2015-08-28 13:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2