said by plencnerb:... there is the side that Microsoft wants to try to have the same interface on all your devices, regardless of what it is (the whole reason behind Metro, as far as I can tell). If you're using a Windows Phone, Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop, Surface Table, or Laptop, your "User Interface" is the same.
The strategm of aiming for the same interface on all devices is a Microsoft corporate tactical decision designed to increase market share/dominance across those devices... to my observation, it has not been "demanded" by users in the marketplace, particularly the desktop-using universe.
said by plencnerb:... While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.
If users were to largely opt out of the Metro UI, then it would certainly prove it was never demanded by them. Instead, removal of choice is proof positive of Microsoft placing their corporate strategy ahead of meeting many users' wants/needs in their product. Not providing the user the opportunity to select their interface smacks of corporate arrogance: Microsoft will drag users kicking and screaming into a world that is dominated by Microsoft's one-size-fits-all corporate strategm aimed at cross-market domination, regardless of the wants and needs of a whole class of desktop users whose productivity will seriously suffer as a result. This is the same pathway they chose with the ribbon concept in Office products, and at least for some time, user productivity has suffered... but that's not a cost element Microsoft has to deal with; instead, users have to.
said by plencnerb:... So, I feel Microsoft is in a sort of "rock and a hard place" with this. The question they probably asked themselves is which group of people do we upset? That can be a tough decision to make, as every person is your customer, and if at all possible, you don't want to upset any customer.
The only rock and hard place Microsoft is in has been a place they've chosen to put themselves. Nowhere is there written some natural requirement that all products must have the same interfaces. When I use a phone, I don't expect it to look or work just like an FM radio, nor do I expect a desktop computer to look or work just like a cell phone. In areas where their usages do overlap, there's no reason on earth why the interfaces can't be similar
in those usage cases. But an interface that makes sense on a handheld (with its micro-display) makes no inherent sense on a computer used for... computing.
said by plencnerb:... Finally, there is the side of this that goes along with change. Its a new version, new interface. You either adapt and learn, or you get left behind.
I have no inherent problem with change, other than that it costs. So I want that cost to be truly needful, not just to enhance the corporate master strategy of somebody else. Whenever a major change is made in how work is done, especially repetitive work like usually performed on a computer, there is both an immediate and a lingering negative impact on efficiency in doing that work... and loss of efficiency carries a cost in time, output, and dollars. This was one of the most immediate negative impacts in the business environment from MS switching Office software to the ribbon instead of menus, and it will have a similar costly impact in changing how the desktop looks and acts. But Microsoft will not experience the costs... its users will. Unless the changes to how a class of software has long worked are truly necessary for sound, cost-effective, technical reasons, they will result in wasted resources. It should prove illuminating to watch how readily business accepts Windows8, considering the negative impact to corporate user training and ongoing productivity.
A real question is what the tangible, real-world benefits of Win8 might be? Especially to the desktop using world, particularly those whose computer usage is heavily into "computing", business, etc.
