Windows 8 Style UI - It's Not Metro Anymore?

[Tharic-Nar]

I'm having a distinct sense of deja vu here, but Microsoft is requesting developers to not call the typography-based design language formally known as Metro, uh, Metro, but to call it the 'Windows 8 style UI', due to possible legalities regarding a European company's trademark on the name.

You can read the rest of our post and discuss here.

 

[Big Red Machine]

No "Metro" for Microsoft, eh?

That's probably just as well. I mean, who wants a name that's synonymous to "bus" anyway?

Maybe the UI should be called "Bust," given the rather vitriolic reaction many people have given the erstwhile "Metro" and Windows 8 in general.

 

[madmat]

How about Crap? Is the name Crap UI taken? Because if not, it's a perfect fit.

 

[Big Red Machine]

As much as I'm tempted to devote more brain cells on the task of ridiculing Windows 8 and its "ex-Metro" GUI, one thing DID strike me as very odd about this whole Metro affair: The timing is very curious. For Microsoft to feel compelled to avoid possible litigation for a trademark infringement just days after they announced their next flagship product had just transitioned to RTM status struck me as somewhat strange.

I mean, it brings up a few salient questions (none of which I have logical answers for): Did anyone (Metro AG is the prime suspect, per the article) contact MS about the possibility of litigation for trademark infringement? Are Microsoft's marketing and legal arms so inept that they never saw this coming? Most of all, how much of a negative impact would the nomenclature change for the GUI make?

For sure, though, the whole thing's got me at least slightly curious.

 

[DarkStarr]

I thought they changed the UI LMAO

 

[Tharic-Nar]

I thought they changed the UI LMAO

Oh, if only, lol.

I do think MS will have a rude awakening with this OS like with Vista. First day sales will be strong as usual, then once everyone gets the OS home and installed, a very large 'WTF' face will descend up home office. Tablet users will likely be happy, but because this is a new market for Microsoft, these will be low numbers - at least for a while. Long term, I really can't call this - it can be so unpredictable at times.

I doubt a name change will decide much at this point. A rose by any other name... but with a more derogatory undertone.

 

[madmat]

They say the desktop market is dying. If it is why has 7 sold as well as it has? Oh, yeah because of the saturation of the market.

M$ fails to realize that if they alienate the saturated desktop market, they're killing off a rather big sector of revenue. There's no reason that there can't be a switch you toggle in the install of 8 that signifies if it's a desktop or touch device you're installing it to and puts in the correct UI as the default. The desktop UI, complete with Start menu, doesn't need to be resident on touch device installs. It can be an option, like many of the optional elements in previous M$ OS versions.

 

[DarkStarr]

I say it should be a switch inside windows setup (and later the OS so if you want to turn metro off you can) that says Touch Optimized or Standard UI. However that would be too simple and no one likes that.

 

[MacMan]

As far as I'm concerned, Windows 7 is good enough. It works great and is the first Windows OS that I ever really loved. In other words: don't try and fix something that's not broken!

 

[Tharic-Nar]

While 7 was/is good, there are still plenty of improvements that can be made, and this is something that Windows 8 DOES bring, but shot itself in the foot be forcing a new UI on top of it, whether it was needed or wanted (and only half implemented).

In many regards, I do feel kind of sorry for MS with this backlash - too much time has been spent complaining about the UI, when in fact it's only a part of the package. The underlining architectural changes and usability tweaks have pretty much gone unheeded. There are other things though that still worry me.

Live ID accounts are in effect cloud logins for windows machines, and are currently optional, as you can still create local accounts. But it's what happens after, that concerns me. Will later versions require Live ID? A resounding 'hell no' would come from enterprise, but it wouldn't surprise me if MS tried to sneak it in via Active Directory or one of its complementary services tied to Server. Even if you decide to take advantage of the Live ID account, MS security has a bit of a shady history. It can sport all the 256-bit encryption it wants, but security breaches are rarely the result of cracking the data stream, but man-in-the-middle, social engineering, guessing passwords or some unforeseen loophole - the latter being the most prevalent.

On the good side of things there is the revamped multi-monitor support. File manager is now back to the same level of usefulness as Windows XP, but with a few more improvements (open command-line here). Task manager and resource manager are a lot more useful in tracking down misbehaving apps; now with the ability to dig into what specific applications are hiding behind 'svchost.exe'. A whole mass of library optimising and general system improvements, resulting in a more efficient and faster OS (according to a number of benchmarks using the RC edition, but we'll see with the final when it comes out).

There's the inclusion of anti-virus by default. Hyper-V pre-installed for virtualizing. But it screws up again (kind of), by removing DVD decoding by default. This isn't a huge issue anymore, there are so many players out there, plus converted formats like h.264, and streaming services like Netflix.

Still, it can't be avoided. In order to access and use all these new features, you have to use and get past... the Interface formally known as Metro.