Get ready to pay more for apps on Windows Store

unifex said:

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, but it seems strange to me that people are arguing about the "advantages" of the Metro UI, whereas I only see restrictions. Please, enlighten me if I'm wrong, but it seems that

Well, you only see restrictions because you clearly lack information.

unifex said:

1. with Metro apps I cannot choose a window size and position as freely as in the usual interface. If that's true, then I don't see what's so good about it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Metro apps can be completely resized and positioned in Windows 10. What "restriction" are you referring to here?

unifex said:

2. replacing menus with big tile-like buttons makes sense on a phone or tablet, but a desktop is neither. Why should a desktop look like a phone is not clear to me.

You have some preconceived notion of what a "phone should look like" and what a "desktop should look like". There is no reason both can't look the same. That doesn't mean one looks like the other or vice versa. It means they are both using a similar approach that works for both scenarios.

Further, there's a gigantic blur now between a "desktop" and a phone or tablet, since desktops are more and more becoming touch enabled, as are laptops. It won't be long before no-touch is in the minority, so it makes no sense whatsoever to design a UI based on today for an OS that has to work for tomorrow and beyond.

This is how Microsoft used to get in trouble. Why should they include a TCP/IP stack when so few people have a network connection... fast forward 6 months or a year and the internet is everywhere and everyone is claiming Microsoft has no vision and can't see where the market is going.

unifex said:

3. there is a difference between an OS and a GUI. Why not make Windows skinnable, so that anyone who cares can make it look whatever pleases them?

It already is, and you can already do that. Window Blinds is very popular tool and uses API's Microsoft designed explicitly to do that. However, the skin is only part of the issue.. there is also functionality behind that, and simply providing new skins can't change the functionality.

There are third party replacement shells to replace your desktop. There are lots of ways you can customize your system. You're arguing for things you can already do.

unifex said:

Then what's the difference between these apps and normal windows? Say on the example of the two versions of Office 2016: why bother with two versions on the same desktop?

Who said you should bother with two versions on the same desktop? Why would you do that?

Cliff S said:

One is just an interface to the internet(modern app) like OneNote, and the other is "installed" and can be used offline like OneNote 2013.

Well, there you go, I don't think I have a need for any app that does not work without internet connection.

Mystere said:

You have some preconceived notion of what a "phone should look like" and what a "desktop should look like". There is no reason both can't look the same. That doesn't mean one looks like the other or vice versa. It means they are both using a similar approach that works for both scenarios.

Further, there's a gigantic blur now between a "desktop" and a phone or tablet, since desktops are more and more becoming touch enabled, as are laptops. It won't be long before no-touch is in the minority, so it makes no sense whatsoever to design a UI based on today for an OS that has to work for tomorrow and beyond.

Sure I have a preconceived notion of what "phones" and "desktops" look like. And just as surely, I don't see any blur between 5" and 30" screens (and that's without talking about multiple monitors). To me, that size difference is the reason why they should not look the same, I don't see a point of a phone-like interface on a big screen. Sure, the trend is towards touch. But does it mean one has to abandon more precise methods of input? Besides, the flat square design is plain ugly - but that's of course a subjective opinion.

Mystere said:

There are third party replacement shells to replace your desktop. There are lots of ways you can customize your system. You're arguing for things you can already do.

Why should one use a third-party shell? In Win2K I could completely change Windows appearance. I could control colors, sizes, fonts, borders, focus, etc. Of course, if I wanted to make my PC look like a Star Trek monitor, then I would need to get a third-party theme, since I'm not a designer, I simply can't do that. But typically I don't need to. Since then, Microsoft gradually removed user controls. I mostly use Windows 7, and in Aero themes one can't change almost anything. That said, Aero still looks way better that all those flat designs. Why not include such controls? Any Linux distro has them, so it can't be that hard. If a "modern" app is just a gateway to something web-based, then frankly I don't care. But if it's not, why not give me an ability to choose the border and transparency of the window out of the box?

unifex said:

Sure I have a preconceived notion of what "phones" and "desktops" look like. And just as surely, I don't see any blur between 5" and 30" screens (and that's without talking about multiple monitors). To me, that size difference is the reason why they should not look the same, I don't see a point of a phone-like interface on a big screen. Sure, the trend is towards touch. But does it mean one has to abandon more precise methods of input? Besides, the flat square design is plain ugly - but that's of course a subjective opinion.

What makes you think you can't hook a phone up to a 30" screen, or even more than one? You can do that today. The point you keep losing track of is the fact that the size of the device has nothing to do with its function. There's no reason I can't take a phone sized device and plug it into a monitor and keyboard and use it as a desktop, then unplug it and take it with me and use it as a phone. This is what the future holds, not single-purpose devices that are used for only one thing.

Ahhh wonderful TSO.... How I miss thee... (not).