How does Metro work?

[kleinma]

Metro doesn't have a desktop so to speak, the Metro start screen is the replacement for the old start menu. So if the desktop app installed entries into the old start menu (most do) then those icons will show up on the metro start screen. If the desktop app also created a desktop shortcut (some do) then it will still make one on the windows desktop like it always did.

[esposito]

Metro doesn't have a desktop so to speak, the Metro start screen is the replacement for the old start menu. So if the desktop app installed entries into the old start menu (most do) then those icons will show up on the metro start screen. If the desktop app also created a desktop shortcut (some do) then it will still make one on the windows desktop like it always did.

The desktop shortcut created after the installation of a legacy application is usually represented by a typical icon the size of which may be only 32x32 pixels (766 bytes).

When I see the tiles on the Metro Start screen, they look quite big. So, will the tiny icons be stretched in order to occupy the entire area of the tiles? If this is the case, since their definition is very low, the resulting tile would be an eyesore. Is it the way it works?

Thanks.

[FunkyDexter]

1) Anyone buying Windows 7 right now gets an upgrade to Windows 8 (i think either free or 15 dollars)
2) Anyone with Windows XP or higher can get the upgrade version for 40 bucks
3) It will be released on 3 form factors of tablet, laptop, and desktop
4) Metro aside, there have been many improvements to the desktop experience and underlying archetecture of Windows (task manager, file copy, drive storage pools, acct sync across devices, etc..)
5) It boots faster, runs faster, and uses less memory than Win7
6) Any hardware that was compatible with Vista should work fine, and most stuff from the XP era will also work assuming 64 bit drivers were made at some point for Vista/Win7
7) For the first time ever, Microsoft is making their own hardware PC device that will come without a bunch of bloatware like your standard Dell and HP system
8) The only real alternative is to get a Mac, and for compatibility or price reasons, that might not be a valid option.

These are all good arguments, particularly 1,2 and 3 because they focus on the marketting aspect of the release rather than the technical, but this

most of the criticism I have read is based on bad or just wrong information

is irrelevant. The market isn't rational and won't behave as such. If the bad press builds up enough of a head of steam (which it seems like it has) then the market will relish the failure of W8. And if W8 doesn't give a good cause for that failure the market will simply invent one. That's why I was quite careful to distinguish between a weak release and a product that was technically weak. It won't matter if the product is the best thing since sliced bread technically, if the market wants it to fail then it will fail.

That failure doesn't mean poor sales for MS (as I said, that would take 2 or 3 weak releases), it just means enough bad press so that the linux and/or apple communities can fold their arms and smugly declare "I told you so".