9 reasons why Microsoft should keep the Metro UI separate from the traditional Windows 8 desktop interface

I think the rationale for merging the two as one OS is so that the machine can behave like those tablet/keyboard combos but with the very best of both worlds to be used depending on when its being used.

Well here are my two bobs worth. Sorry it's a bit long, but I think this really presents the Win8 sales rep with a dilemma.
I like gloss - which metro seams to lack - big time.I don't have a tablet - I just don't need one.I have a touch screen phone - and while the finger prints annoy me a little, I put up with it because I don't spend a great amount of time on the thing anyway.However it is very different with my PC:I use my PC for programming (for fun) and graphics design (for work), and I use it a lot, like all day! - but I have no need of Metro apps - I don't even use those type of apps on my phone.I have absolutely no intention of using a touch screen monitor on my PC for at two reasons:1) Finger prints - on my phone I put up with it - on my PC the slightest spec of dust annoys me and is promptly removed with the cloth that is always at the ready. Finger prints would really really annoy me (bold type intended).2) The keyboard and mouse are way more intuitive for my kind of work, Consider for example: VS and touch screen? Photoshop and touch screen? Office and touch screen?I guess the question is: what is the point of Metro and touch screen on my PC. Why do I need that which I don't want?If someone asks me what I think of Win7, I have no hesitation in my response: it's stable, it's fast, and does everything I need it to do. I love it!However with Win8 I am in two minds - love the tweaks under the hood - don't like, need, or want Metro, or a touch screen.Now it may just be me, but as I get older, if I am in two minds about something I want to buy or consider using - I just avoid it.

The dilemma for the sales rep is this:  
I build my own PC's - it's a hobby and I am planning to build a new one soon. But I really admire the quality of Apple devices. For some time now (years in fact) I have considered buying a Mac. 

So which platform do I buy next?

With software things have changed slightly in that the only application I use - that I really need - is Photoshop. Now I am also planning to buy the latest version of Photoshop in the very near future (my motto with software has always been to buy the full product - I never upgrade) - which is a fairly hefty outlay.

So which platform do I buy it for?

The trouble is that I could give Win8 a miss, but what if Win9 continues the Metro saga? For me, considering I am planning to spend $4000+ on hardware and software, this is a real do I stay or do I jump issue.

I could stay with Win7, or perhaps it is time to make the Mac jump! 

So bottom line, what will it take for me to want to buy Win8 - well all its performance tweaks will be enough. What will it take for me to avoid it - Metro. 

I say Trying to make a Tablet based only or touch screen only OS is a big mistake. This will drive the costs of Touch Screen Monitors and touchpad/laptop prices to go too high for people to purchase. The original Windows 95 Start Menu has been part of microsoft for over 10 years now and they want to remove that feature that people are used to. I say Put it back on and leave it similar to Windows 7 but not taking as much resources like Windows 95/98/2000/XP did. Seems Windows Vista/7 both use some resources. Of course Vista is the new Windows ME because it has resource usage issues and was a crappy made OS that had lots of issues/problems other than just resources. If Microsoft wants to make a good OS they need to keep it simple or people are going to want to move to purchasing Hardware only and go to a free based OS like Linux.

No misconceptions or hater-raid.  You, Sir are spot-on. 

Microsoft is IMO reacting and NOT responding to Google, not the Apple folks.  Google's OS synch's phone to tablet.

I sort of agree and disagree with the article above. Yes Windows 8 metro simply does not work on a desktop for most users, and there should be an option to turn it off when you configure your pc or in the options menu. I can however see some older PC users liking the new interface, it does make everyday things simpler. I can imaging my grandmother liking the interface as she certainly gets confused using the traditional ui, the tile layout would just make things easier for her.

As for a full os on tablets, I think Microsoft took the right steps. If you don't like using the traditional ui on a tablet, then simply don't use it. But for many professionals, businesses this could be a very useful feature. Some applications may have to be run using the traditional ui and may just get optimised for touch, i know where I work this would be the more likely option. Also by having a full UI we can create Tablet/PC hybrids where you can use the touch UI when using it in tablet mode, and when you plug it to a dock, you can use it as a normal pc. As portable hardware becomes more powerful and more efficient this is the way to go.

I am a power user that uses a desktop for work and entertainment.  I have 3 24" displays.  I also support approximately 350 households/users with limited PC knowledge.  I will not be upgrading to Windows 8 if not given the option to diable Metro and use the traditional Start button/menus.  I will not support any user that upgrades to Windows 8.

I am enjoying the metro beta version so far.

We left DOS so we could have Windows (meaning multiple apps running and easily accessible). Now we leave Windows to have one app at a time (Metro).

Perhaps we should reinvent DOS install an updated QuickMenu (haa remember that?). 

Imagine the power we would have with todays hardware? LOL

 As the author acknowledges in an earlier blog, "metro" isn't totally about user interface and appearance.  The bigger piece and the less-publicized one is virtually anyone can write applications that will run under "metro."  "microsoft" further claims they will release the complete API for "metro."  Yes yes yes, the corporation should have released a complete API fifteen years ago.  So one would tend to infer we're entering a Brave New World in computing.  What more could a computer user want?

I'll sidetrack just a few seconds and say "metro" applications likely won't be backward-compatible.  That brings forward the upgrade-and-dispose cycle and at least a few other side-effects.  This isn't among the most important issues though.  My story paints an interesting picture.

The published system requirements say a 1 ghz processor, two gigs of memory for 64-bit and 1 gig for 32-bit.  30G hard drive and video supporting DirectX9 -- supposedly you can use lower-grade video hardware but visual effects can't be enabled.  That would encompass several of the pentium 4 machines I run.  So I burned a DVD and installed.  Such installation was indeed much, much quicker than previous versions.  Then startup came.  "microsoft's" standard VGA has come light years and supported the resolution and frequencies I need.  My monitors are NEC XE21.  Intel, Turtle Beach, AC97 sound setups didn't work -- the only one that would work was an Audigy card.  I have NICs with even greater choice of manufacturer.  The only one that would get recognized was a Realtek card from 1996!  I can perhaps understand not supporting a long-discontinued 3Com, but why did an ancient Realtek work?

Getting to the login screen was also quicker than for windows 2000.  That's when the mayhem engaged.  On P4 machines there could be three minutes before the metro screen came, and then I couldn't get even the built-in solitare to run.  Video had grains and streaks.  Okay, let's continue to play: I put the drive into my pentium D 2.8 workstation with Geforce 6600 and 3 gigs of RAM.  I got almost a dozen good modes for the Geforce card, and could explore system folders -- that part looking good.  Video was still lousy, even when I swapped in a Viewsonic monitor.  I could run IE9 if I waited minutes for it to load, but even the included solitaire would put the system into cache lockup.

So I'm wondering and I continue to wonder, how is win8 going to run on the Atom machines which have less cache and a 1.6 ghz processor?  Granted the pentium D has processing stalls and less-robust threading, but this is ridiculous.

I put the puzzle aside for a few days.  Then one morning I glanced at computer I use as a jukebox, and recalled that I registry-replaced shell explorer.exe with progman.exe.  Why had I done this?  The Profile 2 computer is proprietary and has limited resources.  Progam Manager is old and simplistic, but has a very small footprint.  All I wanted to do was put the jukebox application into the Startup group, which I did.

I chose Emerge shell to try out on "windows 8;" apparently it's now open-source, but it also came up first on a Google search.  This time win8 worked far better than in my earlier attempts.  Performance was acceptable on the pentium 4, and very good (not superb) on the pentium D.  I was able to install and use Libre Office and some other applications.  There is a dock and task bar if you want to use them.  What's missing?  I know of no way this setup will run "metro" applications.

"Metro" seems to be above all else an application layer; it does involve a user interface, but that's maybe 40% of what it does.  Most anyone here could read up and change out the "metro" shell, but that would break microsoft' paradigm of "metro" programmability.  That's why you won't see the company taking it out of the package.  In my case however, "metro" layer rendered the system unusable.  In simplest terms, take all the functions and libraries required for win8's essentially-NT engine, then layer on everything needed for "metro."  Depending on efficiency of "metro," (who knows?) memory and other needs could potentially double!

Brought down to its essence, anyone who can install an .EXE file can change from "metro" to a shell like Emerge (switching back involves just one menu click).  But aside from update support, newer DirectX etc., you wouldn't gain much with win8 over win7, xp or in some cases even w2000.  Emerge, in fact, can be simplified such that it looks and acts a lot like windows 2000.

If the programmers can substantially scale down the footprint of "metro" then win8 _might_ represent the dramatic change microsoft needs.  I appreciate access to the pre-release, and I understand there are going to be shortcomings and flaws, but history doesn't suggest monumental amendments before release time.  For microsoft' sake they need to step up development pace and quality of product.  Simpler variants like Android and IOS are already eating into the corporation's market share; customers discover they work just fine, and may not care about upgrading or even having windows OS.  Extending that migration to Linux and even Google Chrome OS isn't all that much of a stretch.

I moved all but one of my systems onto Ubuntu back in January of 2009.  I had used some variant of windows OS for over 16 years, but in the final days I needed a paid downgrade from "xp" to w2000, what with all the security challenges.  Most significant to me: I moved my Mom's computer from w2000 to Debian.  I used to answer three or four help requests every week; now I'm getting one or two a month, INCLUDING the month immediately after the changeover.  That speaks more powerfully than any words I could come up with.

Steve

Well I'm a tablet pc user primarily who runs a Motion Computing LE1600  with Windows7.  I also have an ipad 1. I bought an ipad 3 and returned it after 3 days and I'm now waiting for my Samsung 7 Slate to arrive.  I say all this to show I know about mobile devices a bit.  Tablets are the future. Windows 8 will be the what MSFT needs to get its footing in that market. People who use Windows on slates and tablets I think will want it on their desktop too. MSFT needs to make the user choose their primary interface upon installation on laptop and desktop machines, as you mentioned In your article, but not charge additional. Pray that MSFT listens to reason.

If you get a chance, go into your local PC store and check out the Samsung All-In-One. This has a feature (Samsung’s Touch Launcher ) that shows what metro couldshould have been like - and it is be completely in keeping with the aero interface of the current Windows7 desktop:

http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/pc-peripherals/notebook-pc/all-in-one