Home > Blogs > More Compelling Windows 9 Features

Many post little more than harsh criticism of Microsoft's Metro Interface in Windows 8.  Traenk thinks there is a middle path that can get people talking about the powerful Operating System instead of the interface. 

In my first posting on this subject, I revealed that I wanted multiple desktops.  Many question the value of the Metro interface in Windows 8 and resent being compelled to use it.  I want Classic Coke/New Coke--I want to run both when it makes sense to run one over the other.  I want a chance to have multiple interfaces running in multiple 'Desktops' that suit the body of apps I must run.  Traditional Windows applications like the Desktop, and if I manage 70,000 Windows computers for a large company, why force my customers to learn Metro?  Why force them to flip-flop between Metro and Desktop as new Desktop apps need to be started?  Now let's expand the concept.

I want virtual machine technology active, hidden as such from view, so that I can experience Windows with all the robustness and reliability the Operating System has.  Microsoft offered an XP virtual machine to help legacy program compatibility issues.  How can that be extended??

Windows 9 can use virtual machines to aid security and to show the Power of Windows. 

As a concession to the growing number of Metro apps, I want a virtual machine that runs "Surface-Lite", possibly with Metro.  No doubt most organizations will have training apps written to new Windows application specifications.  In fact, my doctor friend may run a touch-enabled app as she does inspections.  If I have PC hardware that can convert from a PC to a slightly heavy tablet, why not offer an Operating system that can offer desktop AND mobile apps and interfaces?  What more could I want? 

I want a second virtual machine, a sacrificial lamb of sorts.  I want a Internet-attack resistant interface and virtual machine.  This machine has my mobile/Internet apps installed only--no mixing important information in the memory space of applications under attack.  And by having so few apps, so small a system image, I can use the Metro interface.  I don't have hundreds of application icons to navigate. 

As I cruise the 'Net, good luck trying to hack-attack this system.  The Registry and system files are decoys, in memory only.  Changes do not persist between invocations of my "vMetro" machine.  If I sense I've been had, I can shutdown and restart from an earlier copy of the file that represents the system, what some call a "clones" or snapshots. 

This virtual machine absorbs Internet blows and spares the physical system from attack.

IF Windows 9 adopts these ideas, it allows me to buy a computer that offers the best interface for the body of apps I must use.  This touch-enabled convertible can give me the Surface form factor when that's necessary.  I won't be distracted by Metro viz. Desktop interfaces arguments--I can have both or either--running at the same time.  I can work from both as seamlessly as I work with Windows running on two monitors--I switch from view to view.  This flexibility empowers ME, the buyer. 

Seen through this vision, we return to discussing Windows, the most commercially successful Operating System to date.  We're chatting about a company big enough to offer so much in one OS. 

I'm suggesting that there is a middle ground between Metro OR Desktop interfaces.  Using the powerful Windows OS features (and extending Microsoft's virtualization plans), we can give the user any secure and accommodating experience s/he needs.