Windows 8 Preview: Whadda Ya Think?

[DenCo]

I've been using the Windows 8 preview on my desktop for a little while right now, and I've been wondering both who else has been giving it a try as well as what you think about it so far.

Personally, I find that it's a bit of a mixed bag: it's clean and slick, with Metro, and I've always liked Metro on WP7 and the latest Xbox dashboard... but I'm still finding that the transition to the desktop PC isn't 100% smooth. To be honest, Metro looks nice, but feels a bit awkward in this iteration. I'm also not really liking the disconnect between the Metro portion of the OS and the traditional desktop portion of Windows 8, even though I love that you can switch between Metro and a sort of legacy mode as well.

On the whole topic of disconnect, if I'm on IE and browsing the web, but then I want to have multiple windows open? Well, if you want 2 apps open, you're fine... otherwise, you switch to desktop mode and reopen IE... which doesn't exactly pick-up where you left off. Multitasking is possible in Metro, but you can only have TWO (2) apps on screen at any one time. Even then, you have your prominently displayed app that you're working in/on and the other is smooshed to the side and pretty much unusable and not visible.

Even on the legacy side, they've done things like take the start menu completely away. So, navigating becomes a convoluted mess, unless you were to slap an icon for everything on the desktop... or you feel like digging through Windows Explorer, just like the good old days.

To me, this feels like Windows Mobile all over again, except where they're trying to take a great mobile OS and force it onto the desktop, as opposed to building a mobile OS out of a good desktop one. They're essentially trying to jam a square peg in a round hole... again... And, at the end of the day, I could see a Windows 8 tablet in my future, but not so sure I could ever really enjoy this experience on the desktop.

I do recognize, at the end of the day, that this is pretty much just a BETA, however. Ultimately, we'll see what the final release ends up bringing to the table.

Maybe they can add in a third mode: DOS!

[O_G]

I've been using the Windows 8 preview on my desktop for a little while right now, and I've been wondering both who else has been giving it a try as well as what you think about it so far.

Personally, I find that it's a bit of a mixed bag: it's clean and slick, with Metro, and I've always liked Metro on WP7 and the latest Xbox dashboard... but I'm still finding that the transition to the desktop PC isn't 100% smooth. To be honest, Metro looks nice, but feels a bit awkward in this iteration. I'm also not really liking the disconnect between the Metro portion of the OS and the traditional desktop portion of Windows 8, even though I love that you can switch between Metro and a sort of legacy mode as well.

On the whole topic of disconnect, if I'm on IE and browsing the web, but then I want to have multiple windows open? Well, if you want 2 apps open, you're fine... otherwise, you switch to desktop mode and reopen IE... which doesn't exactly pick-up where you left off. Multitasking is possible in Metro, but you can only have TWO (2) apps on screen at any one time. Even then, you have your prominently displayed app that you're working in/on and the other is smooshed to the side and pretty much unusable and not visible.

Even on the legacy side, they've done things like take the start menu completely away. So, navigating becomes a convoluted mess, unless you were to slap an icon for everything on the desktop... or you feel like digging through Windows Explorer, just like the good old days.

To me, this feels like Windows Mobile all over again, except where they're trying to take a great mobile OS and force it onto the desktop, as opposed to building a mobile OS out of a good desktop one. They're essentially trying to jam a square peg in a round hole... again... And, at the end of the day, I could see a Windows 8 tablet in my future, but not so sure I could ever really enjoy this experience on the desktop.

I do recognize, at the end of the day, that this is pretty much just a BETA, however. Ultimately, we'll see what the final release ends up bringing to the table.

Maybe they can add in a third mode: DOS!

The best Windows UI was the one used in Windows 95. Why? Because it was simple and designed to do the job – not for some other purpose.

But, Microsoft couldn't be content with making minor improvements (it's not as if Windows 95's UI was perfect -- the Mac's was better). Instead, they had to, for instance, push the unsuitable browser UI into the main desktop UI as part of their desire to kill Netscape (Windows 98). Folders on the Windows 7 desktop are much harder to see than they were in Windows 95.

I haven't used 8, but it's hard enough to not be annoyed by 7. I really miss the elegance of 95, even though the Start menu has never been particularly elegant.

[Power5]

Folders are harder to see on the desktop in window 7??? Do you mean the icon does not jump out as a folder?

I was just about to install win8 preview on my new build to try it out but not if I can only open 2 explorer windows at once. I usually have at least 2 browser windows open when on the net. Then I will use a tab when I want to search something that I read without leaving the page. I am usually watching a TV show or movie as well. I know I do a bit too much at the same time, but with 2 little girls I don't get a whole lot of "me" time.

[SpiffyGTI]

whoa whoa, you can only open a maximum of 2 explorer windows at once?

[DenCo]

whoa whoa, you can only open a maximum of 2 explorer windows at once?

In Metro, you can only have two apps on screen at once: one covers 3/4 of the screen and is clearly visible, the other one is off to the side, barely visible. You can have multiple apps running, though... But, there's another catch! No minimize button on the apps, which all run fullscreen! So, switching requires an alt+tab, closing them means alt+F4 or going back to "Start" (Metro UI homescreen), moving your cursor to the top left, selecting the appropriate app thumbnail, right clicking AND selecting close.

[SpiffyGTI]

That's horse****.

[Hostile]

Microsoft is dropping native DVD playback support with Win8.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25503..._playback.html

[SAPJetta]

Microsoft is dropping native DVD playback support with Win8.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25503..._playback.html

As well as Media Center. It will be a paid upgrade. Backlash on their blog has been brutal.

[Slipstream]

Anyone trying out the Release Preview? I decided to give it a shot (dual booting it) and my feelings are similar to what has already been said. The Metro interface is beautiful; definitely a huge leap forward over the decidedly "meh" Aero setup from 7. I also really dig the Mail, Calendar and People apps; I'm a sucker for simplicity and efficiency, and all three do a great job bringing that to Windows. No more Outlook with 750,000 functions I never use... Just email. Plain and simple. It definitely reminds me of my experience with WP7 (and why I fell in love with it) - get in, get out, get on with your life.

Navigation is still a bit goofy though. If you're using the W8 apps, you're fine. But the moment you venture away from the Metro-friendly stuff, you have to jump back and forth between the "Start" layout and the "Desktop" layout. You start getting the feeling like the Metro layout is just a pretty veneer over a slightly morphed Windows desktop.

After 48 hours, my opinion is - Intrigued, but Meh. It definitely has potential but I'm not sure I'd be first in line to upgrade my W7 machine.

[ATL_Av8r]

I've never even used Windows 7. Or Vista.

[Vision33r]

Anyone trying out the Release Preview? I decided to give it a shot (dual booting it) and my feelings are similar to what has already been said. The Metro interface is beautiful; definitely a huge leap forward over the decidedly "meh" Aero setup from 7. I also really dig the Mail, Calendar and People apps; I'm a sucker for simplicity and efficiency, and all three do a great job bringing that to Windows. No more Outlook with 750,000 functions I never use... Just email. Plain and simple. It definitely reminds me of my experience with WP7 (and why I fell in love with it) - get in, get out, get on with your life.

Navigation is still a bit goofy though. If you're using the W8 apps, you're fine. But the moment you venture away from the Metro-friendly stuff, you have to jump back and forth between the "Start" layout and the "Desktop" layout. You start getting the feeling like the Metro layout is just a pretty veneer over a slightly morphed Windows desktop.

After 48 hours, my opinion is - Intrigued, but Meh. It definitely has potential but I'm not sure I'd be first in line to upgrade my W7 machine.

There's a place for Metro and it's on a tablet. When you force desktops and laptops to use a touch interface it becomes tedious and clunky. Even the late Steve Jobs said that if touch UI worked, they could've put out iOS for Macs years ago. Microsoft did not heed that declaration.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable 1st big Service Pack that will us a Group policy to disable Metro or else no rollout to corporate desktops.

[Jader Pack]

There's a place for Metro and it's on a tablet. When you force desktops and laptops to use a touch interface it becomes tedious and clunky. Even the late Steve Jobs said that if touch UI worked, they could've put out iOS for Macs years ago. Microsoft did not heed that declaration.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable 1st big Service Pack that will us a Group policy to disable Metro or else no rollout to corporate desktops.

I disagree. I can't see anything wrong with Metro on the desktop. It works fine with a mouse or trackpad. My only complaint is the relative shortage of keyboard shortcuts as compared to the regular desktop Windows interface.

People have been saying for years that MS needs to break with the past. Metro is exactly that. It's not only a totally new interface and API, it's also VERY GOOD (as in, easily comparable to the best Apple has put out).

I do agree that some awkwardness remains in fusing the old legacy interface to Metro, but it's not insurmountable. This is far better than continuing to polish the same old tired paradigm that they introduced with Windows 95.

A mouse-and-touch-friendly interface is the future on the desktop. Mac OS, Windows, and even some others like Ubuntu are headed in this direction. I can't wait to have the same OS and interface on all my devices.

[Vision33r]

I disagree. I can't see anything wrong with Metro on the desktop. It works fine with a mouse or trackpad. My only complaint is the relative shortage of keyboard shortcuts as compared to the regular desktop Windows interface.

People have been saying for years that MS needs to break with the past. Metro is exactly that. It's not only a totally new interface and API, it's also VERY GOOD (as in, easily comparable to the best Apple has put out).

I do agree that some awkwardness remains in fusing the old legacy interface to Metro, but it's not insurmountable. This is far better than continuing to polish the same old tired paradigm that they introduced with Windows 95.

A mouse-and-touch-friendly interface is the future on the desktop. Mac OS, Windows, and even some others like Ubuntu are headed in this direction. I can't wait to have the same OS and interface on all my devices.

I don't think you understand a corporate environment with 5000+ users that's been trained on using traditional desktop + apps.

Try going to a business meeting and tell the company they need to spend another $2-3mil to update to Win8 and have all apps reworked, users trained, and workflow changed completed.

I work at a huge global business firm and we would have to engineer end to end the entire desktop/laptop environment around an OS UI change.

In the end, business will get what they want. Vista was a huge fail because businesses didn't like it or need it. Majority of businesses are in a "wait and see when it fails.." mode.

[Jader Pack]

I don't think you understand a corporate environment with 5000+ users that's been trained on using traditional desktop + apps.

Try going to a business meeting and tell the company they need to spend another $2-3mil to update to Win8 and have all apps reworked, users trained, and workflow changed completed.

I work at a huge global business firm and we would have to engineer end to end the entire desktop/laptop environment around an OS UI change.

In the end, business will get what they want. Vista was a huge fail because businesses didn't like it or need it. Majority of businesses are in a "wait and see when it fails.." mode.

I'm not sure why you think a new version of Windows is or should be aimed at corporate customers. Businesses have never been on the cutting edge of anything. Even if Windows 8 were a tiny evolutionary change from Windows 7, businesses would not adapt it immediately, nor rapidly.

As with almost every update to Windows, this is aimed at the home user and at any business looking to deploy a new system. I think it's a great update for those groups. The home user gets the newest shiny (which is also a totally solid successor to the legacy desktop), and the business looking to deploy a new system gets access to the Metro APIs, which are based on HTML and javascript and will be at least as future-proof as Win16 and Win32 were.

I'm picturing inexpensive ARM-based workstations with the Metro interface only, running Metro apps (including the Metro version of Office which is surely on the way, as well as any in-house jobs) or web-based apps (including Office365 and any in-house web apps like the ones that many businesses already use). Of course it will take corporate customers forever to get there, but that's a much more corporate-friendly future than sticking with the legacy desktop would make possible.

[GahannaKid]

I've been using it (Release Preview) for awhile on my netbook and I actually find myself using it more often than my HP touchpad with CM9 (but that's a whole nother can of worms). I actually like IE10 in metro and I was pleasently surprised to learn that your settings in desktop mode transfer over to metro. This is huge to me as I've never had anything but problems with Android and iOS web browsing (more specifically the lack of customizing available in it).

After using it since its release I've come to the conclusion that Windows 8 is a transitional OS that's not designed for the computers of today, but rather those of tomorrow. Microsoft is going to drag consumers (some of the die hards kicking and screaming) into their vision of the future; which, if you've watched any of their 'vision' videos you'd know is very, very touch oriented.

I don't know if it'll work but I suspect that by Windows 9 we'll see a much more cohesive implementation of this and there won't be nearly as much backlash. I also suspect that Windows 9 will come fairly quickly as soon as they figure out how to make everything Metro.

All in all though I like it and I especially like the possibilities that it brings to the table.

[Vision33r]

I'm not sure why you think a new version of Windows is or should be aimed at corporate customers. Businesses have never been on the cutting edge of anything. Even if Windows 8 were a tiny evolutionary change from Windows 7, businesses would not adapt it immediately, nor rapidly.

As with almost every update to Windows, this is aimed at the home user and at any business looking to deploy a new system. I think it's a great update for those groups. The home user gets the newest shiny (which is also a totally solid successor to the legacy desktop), and the business looking to deploy a new system gets access to the Metro APIs, which are based on HTML and javascript and will be at least as future-proof as Win16 and Win32 were.

Which is precisely why it will fail in the business world as Vista did. Retail market is not strong enough to convince wall street that Win8 will be a successful. Then MS will be under pressure to push businesses to adopt it and throw all types of incentives like they did with Vista and when that fails then they do the gestapo tactics by telling businesses that Win7 will stop receiving support.

A lot of businesses got fed up with that and continued to use XP even up to today a good chunk of businesses still runs on XP.

I'm picturing inexpensive ARM-based workstations with the Metro interface only, running Metro apps (including the Metro version of Office which is surely on the way, as well as any in-house jobs) or web-based apps (including Office365 and any in-house web apps like the ones that many businesses already use). Of course it will take corporate customers forever to get there, but that's a much more corporate-friendly future than sticking with the legacy desktop would make possible.

That's exactly what Google has available already such as the Asus TF tablet series. In this space I think Microsoft can beat Google if they make the entire experience better than Android.

I think the biggest problem here with MS is they are fighting too many battles without winning a single battle.

They should've chose to leave Metro out of Win8 Pro and allowed the Win8 RT to get better and develop it's ecosystem before moving towards the desktop / laptop market.

[Jader Pack]

Which is precisely why it will fail in the business world as Vista did. Retail market is not strong enough to convince wall street that Win8 will be a successful. Then MS will be under pressure to push businesses to adopt it and throw all types of incentives like they did with Vista and when that fails then they do the gestapo tactics by telling businesses that Win7 will stop receiving support.

A lot of businesses got fed up with that and continued to use XP even up to today a good chunk of businesses still runs on XP.

What I'm saying is that Windows 8's prospects in the business world are not evidence of whether it's a good product or will succeed. Hell, even if Windows 8 were Windows XP (a staple in the business world, as you point out) with another ten years of support, most businesses wouldn't upgrade.

That's exactly what Google has available already such as the Asus TF tablet series. In this space I think Microsoft can beat Google if they make the entire experience better than Android.

Not really talking about tablets, though the sheer portability of what I described (and what MS seems to be pushing for), in that it would provide essentially the same interface for a desktop, laptop, tablet and phone, does mean that tablets are probably going to play a part in MS' future offerings to business.

I know for a fact that, assuming I did not already have a system that works acceptably well in place, I would jump at a system that does as I described (I don't think Google's does because it lacks acceptable Office support).

I think the biggest problem here with MS is they are fighting too many battles without winning a single battle.

There's no way that doing the same thing they've done since Windows 95 would have won that battle. It is a fact that MS is (very slowly, mind you) losing marketshare to competitors such as Apple, on a number of fronts. That fact calls for change, not more of the same.

They should've chose to leave Metro out of Win8 Pro and allowed the Win8 RT to get better and develop it's ecosystem before moving towards the desktop / laptop market.

Getting Metro out onto every new PC sold will jump-start the Metro ecosystem far faster than anything else ever could. Why focus on trying to attract developers to Windows Mobile 8 (and its pitiful marketshare) when you can sneak Metro onto hundreds of millions of desktops and laptops just by including it in Windows 8? I can't think of any way to develop Metro's ecosystem faster and more effectively. Can you?

[Kar98]

Microsoft is dropping native DVD playback support with Win8.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25503..._playback.html

Windows had native DVD playback?

[Avus]

Microsoft is dropping native DVD playback support with Win8.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25503..._playback.html

I don't really care about this... All the windows (XP, Vista, 7) I am using installed K-lite anyway.

I still think there are not enough "attractive" reasons for desktop/laptop to go from Windows 7 to 8. If my next non-clone desktop/laptop just happened comes with Windows 8, so be it. I am more interested on how Windows 8 for ARM will do. This will be the first real battle for MS to against iOS and Android

[kerridwen]

I think I'm buying a new laptop to install Linux on...

I just started using Windows 7 this year!

[vortexblue]

I am a SolidWorks (CAD) AE, and I'm sometimes on tech support. I have 8 installed on a spare computer on my desk. Although 8 handles all of our Applications well, I'm having a tough time without a START button. Admittedly, I haven't spent much time playing with it, but as soon as it's available, I have to be ready for folks on the 'bleeding edge' to call up and complain when their CAD machine doesn't work.

I don't mind the way it looks, I think some of the apps are quite nice looking - most of the time my 8 machine is just sitting idle with the weather app up. lol.

Hopefully, there will be some setting/ tweak available to get the 'start' button back for corporate environments.

[Aonarch]

I am a SolidWorks (CAD) AE, and I'm sometimes on tech support. I have 8 installed on a spare computer on my desk. Although 8 handles all of our Applications well, I'm having a tough time without a START button. Admittedly, I haven't spent much time playing with it, but as soon as it's available, I have to be ready for folks on the 'bleeding edge' to call up and complain when their CAD machine doesn't work.

I don't mind the way it looks, I think some of the apps are quite nice looking - most of the time my 8 machine is just sitting idle with the weather app up. lol.

Hopefully, there will be some setting/ tweak available to get the 'start' button back for corporate environments.

I also hate the new GUI. I plan on sticking with 7, unless the release a 7 GUI for it.

[BRealistic]

The more I think about it, the more the smart phone/tablet like interface makes sense.
Kids are using smart phones and tablets now as computers (games, internet), so it makes sense to make the computers interface similar.
I'm not saying I like, just that I understand.

EDIT- wait, is Windows 8 for desktops.. or just for tablet PCs?

If you install the preview 'beta' Windows 8 ISO, will it only work for a certain time and then be dis-activated by Microsoft?....



edit edit..


And I question the need for 'all new" operating systems every few years.
XP came out in 2001 and Vista in 2007.
Why Six years? Because XX was very popular. Users liked it.
Windows 7 came out in 2009 because Vista was not popular.
PC sellers kept offering XP downgrades on Vista PCs because nobody wanted Vista over XP.
But Windows 7 is universally popular and they want to replace it just three years after it came out?
They should have called in Windows TP (for tablet/phone) or something... and kept Window 7 their main laptop/desktop OS.

[Egilbe]

The more I think about it, the more the smart phone/tablet like interface makes sense.
Kids are using smart phones and tablets now as computers (games, internet), so it makes sense to make the computers interface similar.
I'm not saying I like, just that I understand.

EDIT- wait, is Windows 8 for desktops.. or just for tablet PCs?

If you install the preview 'beta' Windows 8 ISO, will it only work for a certain time and then be dis-activated by Microsoft?....



edit edit..


And I question the need for 'all new" operating systems every few years.
XP came out in 2001 and Vista in 2007.
Why Six years? Because XX was very popular. Users liked it.
Windows 7 came out in 2009 because Vista was not popular.
PC sellers kept offering XP downgrades on Vista PCs because nobody wanted Vista over XP.
But Windows 7 is universally popular and they want to replace it just three years after it came out?
They should have called in Windows TP (for tablet/phone) or something... and kept Window 7 their main laptop/desktop OS.

XP was a pretty good OS, Vista was an abortion, especially if you were an early adopter. M$ got Vista workable just before 7 came out. If M$ doesn't sell software, they make no money so they have to have or create a reason to force people to buy it.

Office 2010 is going to be the last Office to work with XP. Office 2013 is going to work with 7 and 8 only. Look at all the businesses that are going to upgrade Office and the OS. Gonna be a moneymaker.

[BRealistic]

^

But they are selling software, as in operating systems on 90% of new desktops and laptops sold.
They don't need a Vista repeat, where people had a strong incentive to upgrade their existing PC just to keep XP.

We all bash Microsoft, but they have improved so much since the horrible early Windows days.
They offer support for programs long past when most others would have stopped (or gone out of business).

But I do think they should adopt a different business model.
Offer a very stripped down no bling or extra stuff version of their OS's for like $50 (down load only).
With all the freeware available on the net now, they really don't need to include 80% of the stuff included.
Just include the core stuff needed to run windows based programs.
And that very affordable and legal version of Windows for $50 would curtail pirate copies a significant amount.
Most people would pay $50 just to avoid the hassle of dealing with pirate software, and gamers (a common pirate group) might actually prefer the more stripped down version of the OS.


And of course that stripped down OS owner could upgrade later.
But or does shake up their current business model, especially if new PC Sellers start using the stripped OS plus freeware. But I do think Microsoft gives the big PC makers big discounts to use their OS.

[Egilbe]

MS charges a flat fee for a certain number licenses to OEM's for distribution of their OS. If they don't sell as many PC's as the OEM's predict, MS makes money. It's something like $38 for an OEM license, instead of the $200+ they charge for a retail license. I like 7, but I liked XP, too. I hated Vista I upgraded all my PC's to 7 when I started school because there was a student discount for upgrades, something like $29. It was worth it.

[BRealistic]

We had to junk a perfectly good plotter when we went to all XP...
Due to a lack of drivers.
IIRC, the lack of drivers was the issue with Vista.

Why do we need a new OS again?

[Kar98]

Look at all the businesses that are going to upgrade Office and the OS. Gonna be a moneymaker.

How is that? I'm still installing -by request- Windows XP and Server 2003 every day.

[Egilbe]

How is that? I'm still installing -by request- Windows XP and Server 2003 every day.

Eventually you are going to have to upgrade the drivers on the hardware. Hardware fails all the time. If no one is writing drivers for the OS, then you will be forced to upgrade.

[Egilbe]

Why do we need a new OS again?

To keep M$ stock price high.

[Vision33r]

I will download Official Win8 RTM this week from MS then I need to perform due diligence and test the OS in-house.

From my last RC1 experience, it seems Win8 is much tighter OS than the Preview one. I think right now they have an image or brand problem. This strategy may not pay off in the short run, it could be a painful cycle for MS if they can pull it through then it will pay off.

[Egilbe]

MS-DOS 6.22 with Windows 3.11 shell=good
Win95=bad
Win98sp2=good
Windows ME=bad
Windows XP=good
Vista=Bad
Win7=Good
Win8=?

If this was an IQ test, what do you think would fit the pattern? Good, or bad?

[Power5]

Most people would pay $50 just to avoid the hassle of dealing with pirate software, and gamers (a common pirate group) might actually prefer the more stripped down version of the OS.


And of course that stripped down OS owner could upgrade later.
But or does shake up their current business model, especially if new PC Sellers start using the stripped OS plus freeware. But I do think Microsoft gives the big PC makers big discounts to use
their OS.

Yeah, I can still not figure out why windows costs more than 5 times what OSX costs. Stripping parts out of MS would not change how a game is written. They all pretty much come with the directX they were designed on. Not sure what else in the OS is used by games except the windows installer. I would say windows has already been pretty much stripped down. Off the top of my head I can not think of any bloatware.

MS-DOS 6.22 with Windows 3.11 shell=good
Win95=bad
Win98sp2=good
Windows ME=bad
Windows XP=good
Vista=Bad
Win7=Good
Win8=?

If this was an IQ test, what do you think would fit the pattern? Good, or bad?

Forgot Windows 2000. Good and just before XP. So, if you use the most current 4 generations of windows, it would say the next release will be good. Windows 9 will be the one to avoid.

Windows 9 is supposedly being developed for 2014/15 release.

[SpiffyGTI]

I'm looking forward to Win 8. There were lots of driver issues with XP and Vista because hardware manufacturers were too lazy to write new drivers in time for the OS release. At the same time, hardware manufacturers don't update the drivers for older hardware because it's seemingly a waste of time for them. A new OS introduces a whole slew of new changes and improvements.

[Vision33r]

Yeah, I can still not figure out why windows costs more than 5 times what OSX costs. Stripping parts out of MS would not change how a game is written. They all pretty much come with the directX they were designed on. Not sure what else in the OS is used by games except the windows installer. I would say windows has already been pretty much stripped down. Off the top of my head I can not think of any bloatware.

OSX should be free because you're paying for it when you pay for the premium Mac hardware.

What Win8 really is about is the total control of the Windows ecosystem and that's what all the OEMs and developers are upset about.

To get make a Metro app, you have to publish through MS Marketplace. There's a developer license and extra $$ for frontpage Marketplace which got Modzilla really upset because they don't want to pay a fee to distribute Firefox.

Then you got Xbox Live forced on you which you can disable which pisses off EA and Valve who are trying to get their Cloud game services to you and won't work with Metro UI.

At some point Apple will either do a deal with MS or don't care about getting iTunes on Metro at all.

Ballmer is good at leveraging MS services and making money but he's not good at promoting Microsoft's technology and image. MS has tons of good free products they're giving away but nobody knows about it.