The biggest problem with touchscreens is that they're totally useless for blind people. While getting a desktop computer to work properly for a blind person can be a bit of a hassle, it's quite possible to do, especially if you're just doing word processing or the like. But for cell phones, touchscreens are just AWFUL, because most phones nowadays can be used almost perfectly by the blind, UNLESS they have a touchscreen. Heck, I know a blind girl who can even text message like a fiend, because her phone reads her texts to her in Stephen Hawking's voice. She can't use any of the smartphones, though.

If functionality becomes secondary to sleekness or ease of use for (some) people, then we run the risks of more stuff like this happening on a more permanent basis. While it's good to be innovative, it's also important to be GOOD. Just because something's innovative doesn't necessarily mean that it's an improvement.

This is a real concern but I think there's probably workarounds that don't involve thrown out all progress. Yes, touchscreens are an improvement for many. I'll bet there's a way to make touchscreens work for the blind, after all, some Android phones have full keyboards. This is more a case of poor or thoughtless design than a fundamentally broken technology.

Touchscreens have quite a few additional problems as well. For any kind of prolonged use they're an ergonomic nightmare (with vertical touchscreens you'll quickly run into gorilla arm, and trying to do any kind of work on non-vertical touchscreens leads to all sorts of posture problems). If all you're looking to do is content consumption with pretty limited input, or just occasional bursts of use, then touchscreens can work alright. But they just aren't suitable for doing any kind of serious work.

Hence, bi-systems like ASUS Transformer. My gf uses it more than I do (I bought it for her after all), and sometimes she likes to use it as a tablet, and sometimes with the keyboard dock station as if it was a laptop (with a touchscreen, if needed). It even recognized USB mice quite ok, which makes it work even more like a traditional laptop.

When the dock station is in use (ie. "laptop mode"), I personally feel some pointing stuff is nicer to do traditionally with the mouse, while for some touching the screen feels more natural and even faster (e.g. some Yes/No questions etc.).

As for Win8, my main interest with it is not the UI changes, but all the Windows Store, XBox Live etc. stuff, ie. what it will mean to PC gaming and purchasing games for Windows. Hard to say yet whether I will consider it positive or negative, probably a bit of both (compared to current Steam/Origin/GG hegemony).

No, this is not a step up. Every single new dashboard has gotten worse and worse. Games are pushed to the side in favor of the unit trying to a media hub and everything else. I've had my 360 for over four years now. Good user interface? HAH! At least 1/3rd of the screen is wasted space. Half of the used space is taken up by that massive center tile. The useful things are hidden and a lot smaller compared to the stuff that is needed. The rest is those godawful Metro tiles and plain annoying.

You don't call a "list of discounted items" an ad? If I'm interested in a product, I'll seek it out.

Games on a gaming console should be the first and foremost thing presented. I could give a shit about Syfy's app or the latest cookie-cutter pop band's single. It should not be hiding behind Movies and TV and just barely in front of Music. A case could be made for Social being in front of Games.


I'm done. Windows 8 will never be on my PCs, plain and simple. If you like it, fine. But don't pretend everyone does or that everyone would if they "just try it".

You're applying old-style thinking to a new-style app model where these concepts no longer apply.

Metro apps don't use any system resources when in the background unless doing something that is meant to continue (e.g. playing music). An app can be greedy in the foreground but as soon as it goes to the background its CPU use drops to 0% and its memory is marked as available and will be reassigned to desktop apps and foreground Metro apps the moment it is needed.

As a test I've launched every one of my installed Metro apps (about 16, including a couple of games). They are all sitting in the background as I write this and yet there is no tangible impact on the performance of other Metro or desktop apps or the system as a whole. The system feels just as fast and fresh as when I first turned it on with no apps running. If I had an equivalent selection of desktop apps running I would not see the same result. Pinball FX2 alone uses ~20% of my CPU and ~300MB of RAM when in the foreground; if it were a desktop app it would continue holding onto most or all of those resources while in the background, but since it's a Metro app it drops to 0% CPU and 1.1MB RAM within seconds of me switching away from it.

As for crashing, if a Metro app stops responding altogether Windows will automatically kill it, returning you to the Start Screen. I've seen this a couple of times already and it seems to work quite reliably. Windows won't detect an app that only has some features not working (e.g. getting stuck logging in) but for those cases the other methods of deliberately closing are adequate.

If the main advantage of the Metro app is that it drops to 0% CPU while not being used, why not just make it like so for all applications? Or indeed keep the 'close' button on the app?
It STILL takes up 1.1MB RAM and you don't know how efficient third-party apps will be in the future.

What about apps that could potentially interfere with other software? You minimize it, think it's closed and launch an application which has a conflict with the app and you don't even know it - for all you know the app was closed!

There's all kinds of problems with a solution like that, not the least of which being the sole fact that I WANT MY APPS CLOSED WHEN I CLOSE THEM. As a fairly advanced PC user, I need to know which processes are running and which are not, even if only for troubleshooting (and it's not only for troubleshooting).

Common sense, people.

Lets see
*turns on xbox*
Right xbox loaded and it's put the pointer on the disc drive to run the game in it.. below that a link to the games I've played recently (big improvement over previous dashboards), next to that a bigger screen showing me whats on TV, the new films available and a couple of demos that are out. Next to that a small tab for the demo of the week and a tiny netflix add. Nothing hugely distracting...
I hit LB 4 times and I'm at the game tab oh hey thats how many times I used to have to push up on the left stick to get to it...

No huge changes hell if I want to I can press the X logo and use the old blades which are still there to let me log out etc

I'm sorry but compared to the last dashboard with adverts the size of the middle section ACROSS THE WHOLE SCREEN the new small adds are a nice change.
You want full close? alt-f4 or bring up the side tab right click and close.

You mean swipe to bring out the side tab?
Been a long time since I used the Win 8 preview but from what I remember you had to swipe to do it. That's REALLY bad. Swiping works REALLY REALLY BAD with a mouse.

It's great for touch screens but awful for mice.

Because that functionality is strictly provided by the WinRT API; the win32 API doesn't provide that, you need to code it by hand which is a major hassle.

Because the Metro interface is chromeless, which means no buttons for those functions. It's a sane decision, whether you personally like it or not.

It doesn't depend on the application. If it is on the Windows Store it has passed validation, which means that it properly uses WinRT, which means that it can properly be suspended by the system. The application doesn't dictate how much memory it needs when suspended, the system does.

For the life of me I can't think of a real world example of this, but this is exactly what preemptive multitasking handles, and it's been this way since around Windows NT.

If you want your apps closed when you close then you can do just that, it's not like that option has been taken away from you. If you think you can manage your system resources better than the kernel and all of its systems then you are delusional and ill informed.

So you know how to start task manager and see the list of running processes. I see no reason for you not to be able to kill the Metro apps from there if they bug you so much.

Exactly. You seem to be lacking it. Regular users don't go to the task manager to check and see if their application didn't shut down properly and still uses resources (hello Firefox!), nor do they actually close applications when multitasking unless they actually finished using it, at which point there is no difference between closing the application and suspending it.

Keyboard shortcuts ;) Also, it's so much easier throwing your mouse pointer in a corner instead of aiming for a particular element.
Because users don't have to close apps in Metro, just as they don't close apps on their mobile phones or tablets, they just move away from it and the app gets suspends then closes.

How is this not a better model than what currently happens with regular users: ten dozen applications left open with only one being used, but all of them using resources.

If you really think that you can manage system resources better than the kernel and the associated subsystems then you are delusional.

I've got kind of the opposite problem with the Metro apps being automatically closed. I want applications that I open to *stay* open until I close them. I don't want an automated system deciding what I don't need anymore. It has not got a clue what I'm trying to do and it shouldn't make guesses.

I've already had problems with my tablet closing applications after a certain time (and also starting processes without asking). It's irritating.

Windows 7 desktops should be majorly on sale this summer. I think I'll be getting one. :)

I didn't say everyone should, if you don't like Win 8 Metro, by all means use Win 7 instead. I simply think you're misrepresenting the current XBox 360 interface and pining for some glory days where it was supposedly better (as if the Blades UI didn't suck complete ass).

There's so many ways to still launch games directly withing seconds from the first channel it's laughable (quick launch, voice command "games", right shoulder bumper 3 times to actual games channel, the giant freaking XBox button in the center of your controller) I seriously wonder at why you're complaining.

Seriously if you don't want to see a weird ass ad for music, maybe don't switch to the music channel? If you really only use your 360 for games, great, use it for games, but quit pretending it's somehow preventing you from doing this or infringing on your ability to play games. The UI makes it even faster now than it used to.

People don't seem to mind this in iOS or Android.

I'm pretty sure it's because an app has to be specifically coded to take advantage of this. That's why you can't be a "Metro app" without certification.
This reminds me of all the app killer apps for Android that were so popular in the beginning. It was funny as people slowly realized they were actually hurting performance by trying to manage this themselves. Modern OSes have switched paradigms and now are actually better than people at managing resources. Unless you really, really understand what the OS is trying to do you're most likely to simply make things worse as you fight with the OS.

It's just silly. No Darrk, AndrewC is correct, you most likely will be unable to outdo the OS at resource provisioning. This is actually an improvement. That OSes can actually do this these days should be something to be happy about. But most techies I speak to are stuck in the mud. Hey, I used command line a ton more than normal folks, I get the appeal, I really do. But I'm not unrealistic about exactly what my limitations are.