Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Metro

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: Metro

#31

Post by pbz »

beloch wrote: post #21

From the article: "you can’t give iOS apps even the option to run continuously in the background without sacrificing battery life and foreground app performance. But that’s how Microsoft has positioned Metro for tablets — a modern touch interface that carries the full CPU and RAM consumption of Windows as we know it. That have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude is what I didn’t get with Microsoft’s positioning Metro a…

Which proves he didn't even bother to watch the keynote. There was even a piece of hardware that showed the power consumption during sleep. They also showed the new task manager and specifically pointed out how the Metro apps have been suspended (using 0% CPU, but still loaded in RAM).

Re: Metro

#32

Post by pbz »

ashr wrote: post #28
toddmorey wrote: post #20

I think metro is very minimal and very clean. But it's also... cold. A bit too austere. The goal for an interface isn't to impress--it's to connect. Somehow, I've never felt a sense of connection with the Metro interfaces. It feels like design borrowed from the annual report of a faceless international corporation. All design; no personality. I like simple and clean. And I like minimalism. But I also think you have t…

As compared to what? A traditional desktop like interface with application icons scattered over the background? As in... iOS? One would think that the live tiles with continuously updated information show more "connection" with the user.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I kind of feel the same as toddmorey. I find it too cold, too precise, too machine-like. It's like looking at a 3D rendition of a face versus an actual picture. A little bit of roundness here and there, subtle transparency, or at least shades of color could help.

Re: Metro

#33

Post by crenshaw »

ethank wrote: post #8

Metro to me, and I hate to say it, reminds me of MS Bob, and frankly of the original Windows 3.1 except where in that case it was a layer on DOS, this seems like a gloss on Windows 7. I hope for the sake of innovation I'm wrong, but it is frankly more bizarre than Launchpad (and that's saying something). Let me show: https://skitch.com/ethank/f3drj/windows-8-x64-preview then https://skitch.com/ethank/f3drc/windows-8-…

I think the act of flipping between them is not meant to be a common event. But I do agree they do need to clean up the edges, although I don't think its "critical" for v1 of Metro.

Re: Metro

#34

Post by crenshaw »

toddmorey wrote: post #20

I think metro is very minimal and very clean. But it's also... cold. A bit too austere. The goal for an interface isn't to impress--it's to connect. Somehow, I've never felt a sense of connection with the Metro interfaces. It feels like design borrowed from the annual report of a faceless international corporation. All design; no personality. I like simple and clean. And I like minimalism. But I also think you have t…

Metro is actually meant to be "soulless" by design. It's supposed to be distinctly digital. The idea is that your "connections" come from your actual social web, not from rendered wood textured bookshelves. At least, that's the idea.

Re: Metro

#35

Post by jonpaul »

I feel like one of the few who sees the emperor with no clothes.

Let me first start by stating that I do believe that touchscreen devices will continue to revolutionize industries, as they already have. But, why in God's name are Microsoft and Apple trying to shoehorn the touch-screen onto the desktop?

Mac OS X Lion is probably the last OS X version that we'll see. With each version it's gotten closer and closer to behaving like iOS. It seems that Microsoft is doing the same with Windows 8. Think about this, the human-device interface with touchscreen devices and desktop is different. The whole paradigm is different. With touch, you have your finger. The other, you have mouse/keyboard. The user interfaces that cater to one don't cater to other very well. Why force it?

I believe mobile is the future. But, I'm not sure this is the best evolution for desktop interfaces.

TL;DR: Metro UI looks nice, but merging touchscreen UI with desktop UI is a mistake... a la same Windows 8 for all devices.

EDIT: Please share your thoughts.

Re: Metro

#36

Post by ethank »

crenshaw wrote: post #33
ethank wrote: post #8

Metro to me, and I hate to say it, reminds me of MS Bob, and frankly of the original Windows 3.1 except where in that case it was a layer on DOS, this seems like a gloss on Windows 7. I hope for the sake of innovation I'm wrong, but it is frankly more bizarre than Launchpad (and that's saying something). Let me show: https://skitch.com/ethank/f3drj/windows-8-x64-preview then https://skitch.com/ethank/f3drc/windows-8-…

I think the act of flipping between them is not meant to be a common event. But I do agree they do need to clean up the edges, although I don't think its "critical" for v1 of Metro.

I disagree actually. I think cohesiveness should be a pre-requisite for the release of this.

Re: Metro

#37

Post by silverlight »

pbz wrote: post #31
beloch wrote: post #21

From the article: "you can’t give iOS apps even the option to run continuously in the background without sacrificing battery life and foreground app performance. But that’s how Microsoft has positioned Metro for tablets — a modern touch interface that carries the full CPU and RAM consumption of Windows as we know it. That have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude is what I didn’t get with Microsoft’s positioning Metro a…

Which proves he didn't even bother to watch the keynote. There was even a piece of hardware that showed the power consumption during sleep. They also showed the new task manager and specifically pointed out how the Metro apps have been suspended (using 0% CPU, but still loaded in RAM).

He later goes on to suggest that perhaps there will be no "traditional" Windows on the tablet, only Metro, which he discusses having the same sorts of backgrounding-and-suspending capability iOS enjoys. From the article:

It’s worth noting that Metro is more than just a new look, and more than just putting touch first. Metro apps have similar restrictions to iOS apps. According to Jensen Harris, for example, Metro apps will get “about five seconds” after they’re no longer on-screen before the system puts them into a suspended state. There’s no file manager. Users no longer quit (or, in Windows parlance, exit) apps explicitly. These tradeoffs sound familiar?

...Did you (and the parent poster) simply read the Gruber article until you could find something to nitpick, then go with it?

Re: Metro

#38

Post by malbs »

nextparadigms wrote: post #19

This is why Metro will make or break Windows. This is where the line is drawn in the sand. Since ARM is the future together with touch based devices, Microsoft will have to move over to ARM. The problem is they are very vulnerable on ARM, because they have no apps there, and wanting millions of apps on a tablet was kind of the whole reason you'd want Windows on a tablet. But it won't work, because those apps won't be…

Keep in mind a lot of .net applications will run on x86 or arm with no effort by the developer, ie no "simply recompile your application" either, it will just run on either platform.

But you're right that they're exposed with no applications, which is why they're basically giving windows 8 beta/vs11express away to any and all who are prepared to download it, they need to catch up, and quickly

Re: Metro

#39

Post by LokiSnake »

roadnottaken wrote: post #18
technoslut wrote: post #4

>I think Metro will only run alongside the traditional Windows desktop on Intel PCs. On ARM devices, there will only be Metro. It seems there will be a desktop mode for ARM tablets if you look 1:40 into the video here: http://thisismynext.com/2011/09/14/nvidia-kal-el-windows-8-t... The desktop mode doesn't seem to immediately respond to touch like Metro. It will be interesting to see the final product and how well Wi…

Is that really hot off the press, or did Gruber just miss this?

Gruber just posted about it: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/14/for-realsies

Re: Metro

#40

Post by LokiSnake »

ethank wrote: post #36
crenshaw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the act of flipping between them is not meant to be a common event. But I do agree they do need to clean up the edges, although I don't think its "critical" for v1 of Metro.

I disagree actually. I think cohesiveness should be a pre-requisite for the release of this.

Achieving cohesiveness in such a system will be very difficult though. There's a reason why Apple chose to keep OS X and iOS separate.

I do agree that cohesiveness is important to the user experience. It makes me a little disappointed that the extra step wasn't taken to make the Metro UI live on its own without the full desktop experience tagging along.

Post reply on HN