>FUD.
I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an argument to support your "FUD" assertion.
There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds. You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two usage modes in one device.
> Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen?
Because it's better [1].
(I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences)
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-...
With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.)
> Because it's better [1].
I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town.
[1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.
Otherwise, why even call it Windows? Why not just call it Windows Tablet?
The fact is, Microsoft hasn't given a real good reason why Metro should exist on the desktop.
Examples:
Some would say, for example, that Google's Chrome browser is evil because Google wants to monopolize the internet -- but Chrome is a very good browser, it's opinionated, but a successful product, so people can safely ignore concerns about Google's incursion into the browser space.
Another good example is Apple's iMessage which makes texts free for iPhone users to each other. Again, by offering cost savings to the end user, Apple bolsters iPhone appeal in ways that greatly offset whatever it costs them to get mobile operators like AT&T to provide this feature (I'm sure it's not free to Apple). Some would argue that this preferential pricing is unfair to smaller handset manufacturers like LG or HTC as it would be impossible for say, free texts from Android to Android and HTC to HTC is too small for anyone to care.
If you're so pro-Metro here, you need to explain what advantages it provides to the end user. Right now, it's looks like a giant roadblock to your average desktop user.
Quote:
You're used to the old way. You're comfortable with the old way. You like the old way. So do I. That's not a bad thing, and Microsoft left in the desktop for people like you and me (and most others on this forum). Nothing has changed there. I run Windows 8 on my laptop and spend 99% of my time on the desktop like it's Windows 7 with some nice new features added on (and a better security model).
However, a great number of computer users seem to prefer the simplistic style of iOS or Android. It lets them focus on one task using a very simple menu to get from one app to another. They don't need multiple windows overlapping each other, and they don't need tiling window managers. They don't want multiple open windows distracting them. This is why the iPad was made, this is why Android tablets are made, and this is why Windows 8 and Windows RT were made.
For us, we'll complain about the limitations of the Metro UI then switch to the desktop and forget about it. For them, they'll stick to the RT components, possibly momentarily confused by the drastic change from Windows 7 to Windows 8, then settle in and forget they're using a PC. That's probably a good thing. The last thing these users need is their personal IT guy going on and on about how Windows 8 is awful and the RT components are awful and it shouldn't be used. How long have we all spent trying to teach our parents/grandparents how to get around in Outlook and Firefox, writing down a list of steps they'll need to take to get to their email, or how to bring up the new picture of their grandkids? I actually bought my grandma an iPad so I wouldn't need to do remote support over the phone anymore. 5 minutes of instruction and she was ready to go.
I think RT will be a good thing for your average user. I think it will be a mild grumbling point for power users, deserving no where near the current amount of vitriol spewed on the Internet. Think of the RT stuff as an iPad built into (and complimenting rather than replacing) your desktop. You don't have to use it.
Why would I want 2 different operating systems if the underlying goal is to reduce the complexities of needing 2 devices... one for 'play' and one for 'work'?
My phone is supposed to be good at calling, texting, and browsing the web on the go. That's a much different purpose than my laptop, which is meant for coding, etc. So doesn't it make sense for them to have different operating systems?
A different OS for a server than you run on a phone? You mean like the difference between Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 Server? Because it's a huge difference. Not even comparable. You're saying you can't code on a Windows 8 laptop? How am I running Visual Studio 2012 right now? In another window, I have an SSH session open to my VPS, editing some Golang files.
Here's the problem: Microsoft is basically giving you a free iPad bundled with the update to Windows 7. It doesn't hurt anything to have it there, but for a great number of people it really helps. Those people will likely never see the desktop, never care that it's there, and that's exactly what they want. For people like you and I, the only time we'll see Metro on our laptops is when we boot and when we hit the start button to search for a program via keyboard. The desktop is still there. It hasn't changed except for getting better. And yet people still seem to want to turn it into a negative with hyperbole, FUD, slippery slopes, and sometimes even outright lies. The world has not ended. It hasn't even changed. Window is Windows, your phone is a phone, your server is a server, and you still complain.
Not FUD. I agree with that statement the parent said. Why else would Microsoft think of including the Metro interface with the desktop. It doesn't make sense.
FUD.
Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether you want it or not.
FUD.
Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.
Incorrect.
Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to settle a personal vendetta.