To put it in two words ... the response is too early for a user to judge Windows 8.
The / / build / conference I just came back from, is a developer conference. It merged the PDC (Professional Developer Conference) and WinHEC (Windows Hardware Engineering Conference). The sessions on the agenda are topics spanning from the Framework.NET and new WinRT, to the driver development in user and kernel mode.
Microsoft had to show the Windows 8 user experience along with all the new features and in fact we have seen the new shell based on the Metro-style but this is still a developer preview and so it's still too early to draw conclusions on the end-user experience.
The new user features in Windows have already been announced on the Sinofsky's blog when announced of the two shells and the other details about the increased usability of the old shell.
As announced in the first keynote Marketplace is still under construction and this means that a user, in this moment, can't take advantage of the Metro-style exprience. The only Metro-style applications are only the one pre-installed in Windows. Some of these (like twitorama) are still incomplete although very attractive.
I appreciated the coexistence of the two shells. This choice provide users a new generation of applications without renouncing a proven functional operability within Windows, useful to power-users.
The old desktop is still there and has been improved by adding new capabilities to improve its usability. The new Metro-style shell has a number of advantages for users:
In my opinion, Microsoft provided a very convincing response from the technological point of view, guided by the two most important factors: the hardware available on the market and the user requirements.
Wrapping up, users have a platform that is potentially very powerful but in absence of the Marketplace and applications it cannot be judged. It would be totally wrong to judge Windows 8 using a tablet that currently must necessarily use the old Explorer desktop.
The technology platform will be judged not only by developers, but also by the application quality that will be on the market. If the vast majority of applications in the future should offer little functionality or recurring problems, it would mean that Microsoft did not provide sufficient tools to build good applications. I am personally convinced of the opposite because the technological choice do convince me.
In the next posts I will discuss in detail these and other points under the point of view of the architecture of the operating system.
Privacy | Legal Copyright © Raffaele Rialdi 2009, Senior Software Developer, Consultant, p.iva IT01741850992, hosted by Vevy Europe Advanced Technologies Division. Site created by Raffaele Rialdi, 2009 - 2015 Hosted by: © 2008-2015 Vevy Europe S.p.A. - via Semeria, 16A - 16131 Genova - Italia - P.IVA 00269300109