Thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion in the comments below. I apologize that many comments were held for moderation. I allow comments, but I trashed a half-dozen or so that consisted of name-calling or that were otherwise unenlightening. Pro tip: if you include the word “fanboy” in anything except an ironic, self-deprecating sense, you won’t get approved.
“As an in-depth engineering dialog, we tend to favor the long form for Building Windows 8 posts.”
– Steven Sinofsky, President, Windows and Windows Live Division, Microsoft
This week’s epic, 8,617-word post, “Building Windows for the ARM processor architecture,” should have answered nearly every question you might have had about how the next edition of Windows will work on special-purpose devices powered by low-power CPUs built using the ARM architecture.
The ARM version will be available only on new hardware specifically designed for it. Initially, these will probably be in the same tablet form factor popularized by the iPad, although there’s no reason they can’t also be available in designs that look like a desktop or notebook PC. You won’t be able to buy Windows on ARM (WOA) and install it yourself, even if you have an ARM-based device that appears to be identical, spec-wise, to a WOA tablet.
The WOA interface is nearly identical to Windows 8 on traditional PCs built using Intel x86/x64 CPUs, with the same Start and search screens. It will run the same Metro style apps as the x86/x64 edition, available through the same store. It will also allow you to access the Windows desktop, with full access to Windows Explorer (for file management), the desktop Internet Explorer, and other “intrinsic Windows features.”
Apple expert John Gruber is puzzled after reading about Windows on ARM:
So maybe I was right that Windows on ARM would go Metro-only — it’s just that they’ve made an exception for a few built-in apps from Microsoft itself. Why include desktop versions of Explorer and IE, though? Why include two different versions of IE if even the desktop version doesn’t allow plugins?
I’ve heard the same question from several colleagues who know Windows well.
The answer is actually pretty simple, if you think about it.
Why Windows Explorer? Because the new Metro style environment doesn’t have a full-strength file manager. As Sinofsky’s post notes:
You can use Windows Explorer, for example, to connect to external storage devices, transfer and manage files from a network share, or use multiple displays, and do all of this with or without an attached keyboard and mouse—your choice. This is all familiar, fast, efficient, and useful.
That capability isn’t available in the Metro environment, as shipped in the Developer Preview, and there’s nothing to suggest that it’s coming in the Consumer Preview. You can search for files and folders from the Metro-style interface, but that environment really isn’t suitable for management tasks like moving and copying large numbers of files.
Windows Explorer is also the host for the full Control Panel. The Metro style Control Panel has a decent subset of options, but it’s not comprehensive. You need the desktop Control Panel to set up parental controls, for example, or to adjust settings for a printer or network adapter.
Why desktop Internet Explorer? This one is more baffling at first. On x86/x64 systems, the most obvious advantage of the desktop browser is that it will run plugins like Flash, whereas the Metro style browser won’t. On WOA, however, Microsoft says third-party plugins won’t be supported. So why include it at all?
Again, the answer boils down to some management tools that aren’t available in the Metro style browser. For example, the only way to adjust security settings or add a Tracking Protection list is using the desktop version of IE. The desktop is also where you’ll find the full set of Internet Options as well as tools for managing Favorites, history, cookies, and so on.
And, of course, if you want to hook up an ARM-based tablet to a keyboard, mouse, and full-screen monitor, you might prefer to view two web pages side by side—something you can only do with the desktop view of Internet Explorer.
The real surprise in this week’s announcement is that WOA-based devices will include four apps from the forthcoming release of Microsoft Office, which is scheduled to ship at the same time as Windows 8:
WOA includes desktop versions of the new Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote. These new Office applications, codenamed “Office 15”, have been significantly architected for both touch and minimized power/resource consumption, while also being fully-featured for consumers and providing complete document compatibility.
These WOA-compatible Office apps are the only desktop apps that will be allowed on WOA-based devices—third-party developers won’t have any way to build desktop apps for this edition of Windows.
Update: Mr. Gruber graciously links to this post and responds: “But why not write a file manager using Metro? I still don’t get it.”
I could just as easily ask, “Why doesn’t the iPad have a file manager?” I mean, OS X has Finder, so why isn’t there an equivalent in iOS? Answer: Because file managers are complex beasties. Most of the operations you would want to perform require multiple windows so you can drag and drop stuff. They also require direct access to the full file system, which Metro apps don’t have, by design.
Building a Metro style Explorer equivalent would be a major undertaking, and it would require a huge amount of development and testing resources. It would be redundant in the x86 version of Windows 8, where the Windows desktop has full functionality. Why spend those resources when you have a perfectly good tool available for porting, one that users won’t need to be trained to use?
There are some file-management functions in Metro apps: pickers for photos, search tools, and the like. But the Metro environment, at least in this first iteration, does not lend itself to the richness Windows users expect from a file manager. That’s the same approach Microsoft has taken to Internet Explorer in Windows 8 and WOA. The Metro style browser is simple, fast, and good for the majority of common tasks. The desktop version is required for some tasks, and power users won’t need to be trained in its use.
Gruber’s question also misses the fact that Explorer is a host for other “intrinsic Windows features,” including the full Control Panel and the common dialog boxes that will be used by the Office 15 desktop apps included in WOA. You need Explorer to host those functions.
Ed Bott (@ wordpress.com) 
There is no reason that Microsoft can’t offer a Metro File Explorer in addition to the desktop one. They may or may not do so. We’ll find out soon enough. But, until we do, this blog post is based on speculation.
There will not be a Metro File Explorer in Windows 8. If Microsoft had plans for such a thing, they would have discussed it in the many, many posts they have written about file management and Explorer over the past five months:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/tags/explorer/
You may be right. You may be wrong.
But, for the last three to four years, Microsoft has not announced anything until it is fully developed and tested.
Mind you, I’m not predicting they will do this. I’m just saying that if they do, it will be consistent with their approach to announcing things only when they are completely ready and in the bag. (It would also, in my opinion, be one of the smartest things they could do to promote Metro in the long term!)
Ian, that is not true. Follow the links I posted. There are many, many examples of features Microsoft is showing that will be in the beta as a result of feedback from users.
They are not keeping secrets here. Honest.
Anyone want to take bets on Windows 9 dumping the ARM version? MS just seems to greedy to inhabit the portable market to me. I hope I’m wrong, but it appears Windows 8 may put a real kink in Microsoft’s market share. There’s just too many reasons they needed to leave Windows as a whole to move into tables/phones. Not re-invent it, which it really didn’t need. I’m not bashing Metro, not at all. But this mix of old and new is really starting to become way too confusing and out of focus.
Ed, I’m just trying to keep you honest here. Your conclusions may well be correct, but they just don’t follow from the publically known facts. (You may have access to the beta under NDA; I don’t.)
Your comment that “There are many, many examples of features Microsoft is showing that will be in the beta as a result of feedback from users” is quite true. But it doesn’t logically follow from that that there is no metro File Explorer!
I’m a stickler for logic.
I understand your point, Ian. But what you are missing is the way the Windows division now works under Sinofsky. They do not do surprises. Period. Full stop. End of case. Everything you see in the beta will be something they have already shown or discussed. The idea that a major foundational feature would be sprung as a surprise with no previous mention is a complete nonstarter. That’s not logic, that’s how this group works.
Ian, Sinofsky explicitly said to the press (not under NDA, I’ve written about it several times) at /build/ that there were some things they wouldn’t do in Metro, including Task Manager and Explorer. Also, you appear to be approaching the point of trying to prove a negative, which is rarely successful 😉
John C. Dvorak described Windows 8 as “schizophrenic” because he felt that the option that he wanted was always in “the other Control Panel,” or “the other browser,” or “the other interface.” That seems to be a major theme.
I don’t see how Microsoft can sell an iPad that requires you to have Windows skills and generate the kind of demand that iPad generates. Consumers didn’t want Windows even when it was the only choice. Why would they want it now when it is the harder choice and the minority choice? (iPhone by itself generates more revenue than all of Microsoft, and iPad by itself generates the same revenue as Windows.) So Microsoft is telling the consumer to do more work with less apps on an unproven WOA platform while Apple is showering them with apps and services on the most popular high-end PC’s, most popular tablet PC’s, most popular phones, and most popular media players.
The consumer is so different now from even 5 years ago. The idea that they want Windows is crazy. The favorite feature of iPad is that it does not run Windows but it does all the Windows stuff, just much faster, easier, and more reliable. Among consumers, that is common knowledge now.
I don’t disagree with Ed’s conclusion, I just find the logic, on his and Microsoft’s part, circular and not informative.
We’ve added WOA because Metro is not full-featured. So why not make Metro full-featured? Metro is not designed to be full-featured; that is what WOA is for. What is WOA for? To add the features missing from Metro. Why are they missing from Metro? Because Metro will not have those features which is why we are adding WOA… Rinse, Lather, Repeat….
I think the two versions is epic. This is Microsoft’s way of evolving in two directions at once. They will build the x86 version and the ARM version. Which is, with more or less tabletization. My bet is the tabletized one will win out. I’m thinking that Microsoft is dragging the old franchise to a place where it’s too big and clunky to be of use when you’ve got no choice: hold down battery use, and work fast every time.
Tim – I don’t think Metro could have incorporated the entire breadth of functionality necessary to counter a completely absent desktop in any modest timeframe. You go long on Metro features to remediate the death of Explorer, Control Panel, cmd.exe (the list goes on), and the timeframe to produce Metro could have stretched on years further (an evolution you can likely expect to see occur in the coming years, should Metro/WinRT/WOA take hold in the market. Additionally, it’s likely not feasible that Office could have been completely rearchitected in Metro on ARM in a reasonable timeframe.
By scaling back both Metro expectations and what the Windows desktop delivers on WOA, Microsoft is able to meet in the middle, AND have Office applications there as expected by enterprise users. If the bold stroke to constrain the desktop in WOA is any indicator, you could possibly expect a version of Windows at some point in the future that surfaces little or no desktop.
It seems like they might as well have split the two operating systems into Windows Classic/Desktop/whatever and Windows Tablet. While I am sure there are folks who wish the iPad had an OSX-mode for complex operations, there are far more who appreciate that the iPad does not need those complex operations. And there are plenty of desktop folks who would love to disable all “touch-friendly” features.
WOA is so different from Windows 8 that they really can’t be considered the same product. The “Windows advantage” Microsoft enjoys on the desktop (compatibility with all our old favorite programs and the perception that most future programs will have a Windows version) will not exist on WOA.
Plus, isn’t Microsoft setting themselves up for easy jabs with the whole WOA => DOA thing?
I don’t really think iOS lacks a file manager because it is a “complex beastie” and therefore wasn’t worth Apple’s efforts. Your look at the problem is reversed. It isn’t “Apple didn’t build a file manager because it was complex”, but rather that they said, “What would a system without a file manager look like?” Saying that the problem is “complex” as the reason not to do it is kind of a strange reason. Tim F. has already summed up my own problem with this logic very neatly.
“You need the desktop Control Panel to set up parental controls, for example, or to adjust settings for a printer or network adapter.”
I’m sure my mother will understand that just fine.
I’m sure she won’t call me, confused, asking how to set it up. You know, like she does now with her iPad.
Oh … hang on. No, sorry, I’m getting those products confused. Carry on.
Tim F., I think you are mistaking WOA (Windows On Arm) with desktop based apps. WOA was NOT added because Metro was not full featured. WOA was added because MSFT needed low power tablets that ran a variant of Windows, and that variant is Metro. Metro runs on both WOA and x86. It is a Subset of desktop Apps, and ONLY from Microsoft, that run on WOA that distinguishes itself from Windows 8 on x86 where ALL desktop apps run.
The real and obvious answer is that its a hack. They’re shipping a demo. They don’t have a tablet OS ready so we’re getting this bizarre hybrid instead. They’re not ready to commit to Metro. Windows 8 tablets are going to be a mash-up of two different styles. Eventually they’ll start telling us we need to wait for Windows 9 to get the real tablet experience. This is typical Microsoft behaviour. What’s absolutely bizarre is that the media is accepting it uncritically.
The Apple comparison show the difference in style: Apple don’t put half-finished (in purpose!) apps and don’t mix new/old at the same time.
If in metro IE is not full featured, and the regular one is, then use only the regular one. Or the metro one, and add with time the rest. But the need to handle both lead to the confusing aspect that have plagued windows forever in the mindset of people.
Is Windows in ARM is new enough to not be compared with old windows, people can accept the transition. But is madness the necessity to use the same program twice in different context to archive the full requirements of people. If something is not present in a program, is not present. People complain is not there, but is cristal clear what to do: wait,
But if is half-present??????
And why need to be the file manager on metro equally complex to the desktop version???? Why, in fact, people WANT THE SAME COMPLEXITY than in regular desktops???? Why chose a new thing that try to be as complex as the old thing????
Regarding your follow-up asking why the iPad doesn’t have a Finder — applications and their data files on iOS are normally sandboxed, and writing outside a particular application sandbox container is forbidden, so a Finder on iOS wouldn’t really be a very useful tool in most scenarios.
That said, yes, writing file managers is indeed a complex task.
I could just as easily ask, “Why doesn’t the iPad have a file manager?” I mean, OS X has Finder, so why isn’t there an equivalent in iOS? Answer: Because file managers are complex beasties.
That’s not the reason iOS lacks a file manager. iOS lacks a file manager because of a philosophy that a “post-pc” era, users shouldn’t have to worry about where their files are. They believe that file management is a maintenance task that burdens the user and should be eliminated.
Whether you agree with that philosophy or not, Apple’s action (or lack thereof) regarding a file manager for iOS is consistent with that philosophy. In the early days of the jailbreak community there were plenty of “Mobile Finder” type applications. If persistent developers working with an undocumented API can make a file manager for iOS, I am certain Apple could have made one if they wanted. Not having a file manager was a deliberate choice.
So the question stands, why doesn’t Metro have its own file management utility? If you believe its for the same reason that the iPad doesn’t have one, then it shouldn’t have on in WOA either.
Its because Windows 8 will be a 1.0 version of their Windows / Metro hybrid, and maybe in Windows 9, you will have a file manager and full control panel in Metro, AND a full control panel. Probably by then there will be a full Metro version of Office as well, and they will be able to stand toe-to-toe with Apple. Windows 8 is a stop gap, just in case “this post-pc thing” actually happens.
But Ed, the fact that WOA has a desktop and that a Metro version of Explorer has not yet been developed are both under Microsoft’s complete control, so citing one as a reason for the other doesn’t seem very strong.
More like Microsoft has chosen not to or has not yet devoted resources to building a fleshed out version of Explorer for Metro.
The same goes for side-by-side browsing and office. Those are things that Microsoft could have built in to the Metro versions of those applications or into the Metro environment itself. Maybe they will someday.
Re Ed’s point about the requirement to use desktop file manager because “file managers are complex beasties”, take a look at GoodReader on iOS – it has a full-featured file manager that can move files to and from an iDevice to and from a multitude of servers, and with a very serviceable touch interface.
Could Apple have built it – sure, but they didn’t because of the point raised above about the post-pc philosophy that users shouldn’t be concerned with file locations.
So I don’t buy the thought that Microsoft couldn’t make a Metro file manager and control panel. This isn’t about capability or necessity, its about philosophy.
Wes Miller, I don’t really care if Microsoft can’t deliver on time, or does’t know how to develop simpler interfaces, or are commited to providing a full-featured desktop-like offering. Those are Microsoft’s problems, not mine. What I’m concerned about is being saddled with a pile of crap for the several years it takes Microsoft to figure out the answers to those problems while trying to rationalize why they don’t have answers that Apple had 2 years ago already, while hearing this twaddle as a rationalization. And, no, I see no signs of a quick AND successful merger of the two any time soon.
EB, my understanding of the situation is fine, while I was admittedly being terse and imprecise in application of terms. In fact, your posts sounds oddly like the crude circularity I was trying to mock.
Obviously, there’s no reason to be completely sure about this pudding until we’ve proved it by eating it. But it looks like the implementation of the desktop for Office apps is actually a confirmation of the inherent flaw and contradiction in the entire concept:
Microsoft clearly felt that they couldn’t provide an adequate Office experience — whatever their definition of “adequate” is in this context — without the desktop. But then the Emperor has no clothes on: That means that even within Microsoft’s definition of the playing field, only Office will get an adequate environment on WOA, other developers won’t. And if the Metro environment is adequate for all other developers, then why wasn’t it adequate for Microsoft and Office?
Whichever way you look at it, it doesn’t compute.
Tim, your understanding may be correct, but what you wrote that I responded to was completely inaccurate. I did not state I supported microsofts policy, nor that I thought the two track approach made sense, what I stated was that you confused WOA for desktop applications. WOA refers to a flavor of Windows, while desktop/Metro refer to application APIs that developers write to?
“We’ve added WOA because Metro is not full-featured.” do you mean we’ve added select desktop apps?
“Metro is not designed to be full-featured; that is what WOA is for. What is WOA for? To add the features missing from Metro.” no, that’s what desktop based apps are for
Look, I agree that the two path strategy is a mess, but so is the claptrap you wrote…
iPad (and iOS in general) does not have a filemanager, because Apple thinks that manually managing files is history and/or something that you do with traditional computer. OS X has it, of course, but that does not mean that iOS should have it as well. iOS and OS X are, including the devices they run on, very different systems in how you use them. Yes, they share the same infratructure, but everything above that is tailored for their specific use-case.
In short, why doesn’t iPad, or rather iOS, have filemanager, when OS X does? Because OS X and iOS are two different things, with different ways of using them.
Windows 8 on the other hand… It’s Windows. Windows has always had a filemanager, so it would be logical that Windows 8 using Metro also has a filemanager. So the question remains: why doesn’t it? Or rather, why does it have the traditional filemanager? Same goes for IE and Office. Sure, iPad has iWork-apps, but those are tailor-made for the OS and UI.
This gets even more confusing if we listen to the margeting, how Windows 8 brings Windows to iPad-like tablets with “no compromises”. But it seems that they are compromising already. Sure, we will get fll-featured filemanager, but it will not be designed for tablets.
It seems that the risk here is that Microsoft is afraid of going all-in to tablets, like Apple did. Apple created the device and the software to fully take advantage of the form-factor. That meant some sacrifices here and there, and benefits in other areas. Microsoft seemed to be doing that with Metro, but now they are afraid to go all in, and instead they are holding on to the “traditional” desktop, if ever so slightly.
The problem with Microsoft is that it is afraid to say no. Real innovation is about saying no to the bad ideas and focusing on the great ones. Microsoft needs to put all its resources into creating a great touch version of Office that runs silky smooth on Metro. It already has great talent and expertise. It just needs the focus. Go and create a great version of Internet Explorer on Metro, even a great control panel. Let go of the past as it will ultimately confuse customers and drive them away.
Problem is average users, the normal people, think Windows is complex. Now Windows 8 tablets with WOA are even more complex.
The same people look at iPad and think that’s a non-complex computer.
Microsoft has a hard work educating average consumers why more complex Windows 8 WOA tablets are nicer to use than Windows 8 desktops. I’d guess it’s impossible mission. People are not going to LOVE something that is even more complex computer than what they currently have with Windows PCs.
(1) I really don’t understand why a file manager can’t be written in Metro. Early computers such as the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga included this capability and they had tiny amounts of OS code. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager
(2) Why can’t Metro IE include an options pane that provides the tools that you mention? Seems very easy.
No. The only reason for including an old-style Windows mode, that makes any sense, is as a way to include MS Office on these machines. Microsoft makes too much money from this product to drop it and converting it to the Metro UI would reduce user lock-in too much.
The whole point of windows 8 being x86/64 and ARM is Unification.
What you do on the desktop is easily transferable to tablet and phone, you dont have to learn different ways to do things across the different platforms. This cannot be said for osx/iOS.
Why won’t MSFT sell Windows on ARM licenses?
There will be a market for it. By refrying selling licenses MSFT actively forces people to pirate Windows.
Will WinOnArm support 36 bit memory addressing? Will there be a 64bit version for 64bit ARMs in the pipeline?
@RichCreedy,
“The whole point of windows 8 being x86/64 and ARM is Unification.
What you do on the desktop is easily transferable to tablet and phone, you dont have to learn different ways to do things across the different platforms. This cannot be said for osx/iOS.”
Yes, that IS the whole point of “Windows Everywhere.” That is the justification, the rationale, the misdirection that epitomizes everything that MS does (or fails to do).
As others have implied in their posts, if you have to relearn something, then you might as well consider relearning all of it. This “unification” doesn’t seem to work out well within ONE environment; how then will it work out across the different platforms? If people are struggling with the differences between different versions of Word (such as when a ribbon UI is introduced), or between subsequent versions of Windows, then “unification” just becomes a buzzword. That’s the fear. Might as well go with something completely different.
And apparently you do have to learn to do things differently depending on platform or what you want to do. Half the posts here are about how you have to go into the desktop version of IE to deal with certain settings that it is not possible to administer in the Metro version.
What’s interesting about the OS X / iOS split is that they work remarkably well within their own environments, and that IS the whole point with them. OS X is very consistent UI-wise, and software developers are held to a high level of consistency in the way menus and settings are presented to the user.
OTOH, iOS really doesn’t require any “learning” at all, does it. This cannot be said of Windows/WOA/Metro. Any 3 or 93-yr old can pick up an iPad and do quite a lot with it intuitively. And the app, in effect, becomes the interface. This is a big reason for their wide appeal — from schools to all sorts of new business applications that people didn’t even realize they could do better and more simply. This is precisely what “unification” for the sake of it cannot hope to achieve.
So, as usual, MS can tell us that we as users are “missing the point” when we get confused. Or, MS can seriously think about how, very often, “less is more”. As other posters have said, this seems to be another case of MS throwing everything into the project without committing to a plan, and promising how the real experience will come along later (in Windows 9 perhaps when they see how this whole “post-pc” thing works out). Sometimes focus is about saying “no” — in this case, perhaps “no” to any form of desktop mode on ARM would be wise.
In your response to Gruber:
“I could just as easily ask, “Why doesn’t the iPad have a file manager?” I mean, OS X has Finder, so why isn’t there an equivalent in iOS? Answer: Because file managers are complex beasties. Most of the operations you would want to perform require multiple windows so you can drag and drop stuff. They also require direct access to the full file system, which Metro apps don’t have, by design.”
The issue Gruber is trying to bring up is not that Metro needs a file manager, but rather that Microsoft is (yet again) pushing the Windows desktop environment onto tablet users. Explorer and Office on the desktop is just the way in which they’ve done this. Mentioning the iPad wasn’t really relevant.
They could avoid the desktop completely by running Office 15 inside of Metro and adding some file management and advanced-settings features within that sandbox. This would offer full Office 15 functionality and still integrate into the Metro interface, yet Microsoft seems perfectly happy to keep pushing the traditional desktop environment onto devices completely unsuited to the task. All for the sake of running this one suite of apps?
“It would be redundant in the x86 version of Windows 8, where the Windows desktop has full functionality.”
I guess you could say the same for Metro apps on x86 hardware as a whole.
“Why spend those resources when you have a perfectly good tool available for porting, one that users won’t need to be trained to use?”
Because those users are on tablets. This is what Metro is for, right?
“There are some file-management functions in Metro apps: pickers for photos, search tools, and the like. But the Metro environment, at least in this first iteration, does not lend itself to the richness Windows users expect from a file manager. That’s the same approach Microsoft has taken to Internet Explorer in Windows 8 and WOA. The Metro style browser is simple, fast, and good for the majority of common tasks. The desktop version is required for some tasks, and power users won’t need to be trained in its use.”
It will be interesting to see how much trouble other web browsers will have incorporating these tasks into Metro.
“Gruber’s question also misses the fact that Explorer is a host for other “intrinsic Windows features,” including the full Control Panel and the common dialog boxes that will be used by the Office 15 desktop apps included in WOA. You need Explorer to host those functions.”
Okay, but why have the dependency there in the first place?
Bobby,
“Because those users are on tablets. This is what Metro is for, right?”
No, not right. There’s the fundamental misunderstanding. Metro works on tablets but it is also designed to be a first-class player on desktops and laptops.
If you don’t get that, you won’t understand why many of these design decisions were made.
“Bobby,
“Because those users are on tablets. This is what Metro is for, right?”
No, not right. There’s the fundamental misunderstanding. Metro works on tablets but it is also designed to be a first-class player on desktops and laptops.
If you don’t get that, you won’t understand why many of these design decisions were made.”
That may be so — makes sense, since the desktop experience can be confusing.
However, that still doesn’t quite explain why some of the desktop experience/features are used/required on a (apparently predominantly Metro) ARM tablet in ways that are at variance to each other. If you and MS don’t get that, you won’t understand what the confusion and skepticism is all about; it’ll continue to get swept under the carpet as another issue that MS can merely rename, postpone, or attempt to bully consumers into liking.
Indeed, what it sounds like is that Metro really is some kind of superficial layer as most of us suspect. Apparently, it is supposed to be used on the desktop in order to enhance the look and feel there, to make the desktop experience friendly and funky and modern or something. Yet, when used on an ARM tablet, Metro must be enhanced in features by desktop elements (such as the file manager), in order for the device to meet the expectations of it that MS is touting. Because why “reinvent the wheel”, right?
Apparently Windows is a “jack of all trades but master of none”. One just wonders how long that can last since new trades are being discovered and invented all the time.