what do you need the start button for?

[Dot Matrix]

Is this still going on? Give it a rest already. The Start Menu is dead. If you can't accept that, then stay on Windows 7, but keep in mind Windows 9 is only going to bring more changes into the Metro Design Language.

[Darrian]

As has already been stated, Windows 2000 was actually a very good operating system. It was basically XP without the distasteful, oversized blue interface. There were some compatibility issues - both drivers and games - but that was because the software and hardware ecosystems were incredibly poor back then and Microsoft hadn't standardised most of the driver components.

Certainly it's ridiculous to try to equate 2000 to ME and even when you were challenged you did nothing to validate your position. We should be engaging in intellectual discussion and articulating out perspective on the situation rather than resorting to needless vulgarity (like the constant use of term "crap").

Windows 2000 was a very good operating system, but it was not XP by a long shot. It is comparable to Me, with the distinct and extremely relevant exception that it was actually incredibly stable and didn't BSOD every 30 min. 2000 was the business version of Me just as NT was the business equivalent of 98. XP was radically different because it was the first Microsoft OS where they stopped developing a separate operating system for businesses and home users, so it had all the features that home users were accustomed to and the stability of the NT kernel. Also, there was nothing stopping you from going back to the godawful classic shell of 2000 if that's what you liked, or you could have done what most of us here at Neowin probably did and use a custom theme, of which there were quite a few really good ones (Neowin was pretty much a hub for the XP theming community for many years, and many skinners came from here and provided the members here with "beta" versions of their skins before they released them elsewhere, like DeviantART).

The removal of the start button and the introduction of the start screen are much more radical than "prettier" window borders. A lot of people are opposed to it. I don't really care, I'm playing with the new app launcher WinLaunch and it is awesome. I even changed the icon to a Windows flag with IconPackager and pinned it to my taskbar.

[Nashy]

I need it to get to the start menu. I don't use the hardware button because most of the time I can't reach the keyboard. I get very comfy.

Metro start dash or whatever it id called is like a vomit of colours across my screen. I love how Metro apps (useless IMO) tiles look good, and regular ones look.... ****.

[McKay]

the metro dashbaord can be very very very clutter if you have more then 50 or more programs installed. there is no way to organized them

I'm sorry what?

Its needed if you have say 100+ programs installed. I doubt you would remember the names of all 100+.

Simply scroll out, alternatively if you remember the name of the program you're looking for, which most will, simply start typing at the startscreen.

[Nashy]

I don't want to start typing. I don't think the above looks clean.

For a tablet, that's just perfect. For MY computer, and how I use MY computer. It's a heap of ****.

[Nashy]

Windows 2000 was a very good operating system, but it was not XP by a long shot. It is comparable to Me, with the distinct and extremely relevant exception that it was actually incredibly stable and didn't BSOD every 30 min. 2000 was the business version of Me just as NT was the business equivalent of 98. XP was radically different because it was the first Microsoft OS where they stopped developing a separate operating system for businesses and home users, so it had all the features that home users were accustomed to and the stability of the NT kernel. Also, there was nothing stopping you from going back to the godawful classic shell of 2000 if that's what you liked, or you could have done what most of us here at Neowin probably did and use a custom theme, of which there were quite a few really good ones (Neowin was pretty much a hub for the XP theming community for many years, and many skinners came from here and provided the members here with "beta" versions of their skins before they released them elsewhere, like DeviantART).

The removal of the start button and the introduction of the start screen are much more radical than "prettier" window borders. A lot of people are opposed to it. I don't really care, I'm playing with the new app launcher WinLaunch and it is awesome. I even changed the icon to a Windows flag with IconPackager and pinned it to my taskbar.

No. ME was a complete and utter disaster. It was the worst.

Windows 2000 was a brilliant piece of software, which should go down in MS history as one of their best ever.

[Daniel_Pooh]

Without the Start button you cannot start any of your programs and games, Microsoft wants you to only purchase everything from their "app store" and spent thousands a year or you wont be able to use your PC anymore.

[Darrian]

No. ME was a complete and utter disaster. It was the worst.

Windows 2000 was a brilliant piece of software, which should go down in MS history as one of their best ever.

I'm not arguing that 2000 wasn't good, but XP improved upon it in countless ways. Me wasn't as bad as most people think IF you disabled system restore, which most people probably didn't, but it was simply an updated version of 98 and not the next evolution of NT. The entire 9x line was incredibly unstable and prone to random crashing; 95-Me were all crap.

[migo]

Windows Me worked fine if you had appropriate hardware for it.

[Nashy]

I'm not arguing that 2000 wasn't good, but XP improved upon it in countless ways. Me wasn't as bad as most people think IF you disabled system restore, which most people probably didn't, but it was simply an updated version of 98 and not the next evolution of NT. The entire 9x line was incredibly unstable and prone to random crashing; 95-Me were all crap.

Agreed. But Windows 2000 was compatible with everything I used. Windows ME decided not to work with most of my software. Windows 2000 rarely crashed, Windows ME ALWAYS crashed.

XP was the greatest. Windows 7 is even greater.

Windows 8 is for tablets. Enough said.

[Eric Veteran]

Without the Start button you cannot start any of your programs and games, Microsoft wants you to only purchase everything from their "app store" and spent thousands a year or you wont be able to use your PC anymore.

Huh? You can pin (and launch) any application on your computer to the start screen.

[Dot Matrix]

Without the Start button you cannot start any of your programs and games, Microsoft wants you to only purchase everything from their "app store" and spent thousands a year or you wont be able to use your PC anymore.

######?

[Darrian]

Windows 8 is perfectly suitable for desktops, too. There are many improvements over 7. The problem is that they've changed how you access your programs in a radical new way that a lot of people find cumbersome or just too different to adjust to. Solution: find a different application launcher. WinLauncher is great, I think. Object Dock is good, too. You can even use Classic Shell, which will basically give you back a start menu, but it's not as nice as 7's start menu IMO. The issue here? You have to actually do something and not just start playing with it out of the box. Everybody who visits these forums regularly should be perfectly capable of doing that, despite the inconvenience. I don't know why MS decided to remove it completely and not just hide it away so you could reenable it like you could in the dev preview.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I don't want to start typing. I don't think the above looks clean.

For a tablet, that's just perfect. For MY computer, and how I use MY computer. It's a heap of ****.

I have no idea what's not "clean" about it. The background pattern can be changed or disabled entirely, while the tiles and their text are equally sized for a consistent layout (in the same way that icons are). To call it a "a heap of ****" is an entirely emotional stance and not based on the merits of the interface.

XP was the greatest. Windows 7 is even greater.

Where do people get the idea that XP was so great? It had some of the most serious security breaches in the history of operating systems, while it's bright blue oversized interface was widely derided for being childish. It improved over time but it's revisionist history to argue that it was "the greatest".

Windows 2000 was a very good operating system, but it was not XP by a long shot. It is comparable to Me, with the distinct and extremely relevant exception that it was actually incredibly stable and didn't BSOD every 30 min. 2000 was the business version of Me just as NT was the business equivalent of 98. XP was radically different because it was the first Microsoft OS where they stopped developing a separate operating system for businesses and home users, so it had all the features that home users were accustomed to and the stability of the NT kernel. Also, there was nothing stopping you from going back to the godawful classic shell of 2000 if that's what you liked

XP was a decent operating system but it really wasn't a huge jump from Windows 2000. The biggest change was the interface - it was bright and garish, which never appealed to me. I'm well aware that XP was the first NT-based operating system designed for consumers but the point remains that there was nothing to stop the same people from running Windows 2000, which was exactly what I did. Windows 2000 is not comparable to ME because it didn't suffer the instability issues that plagued ME - heck, I remember when I first installed ME that it crashed during the install.

Windows 8 is definitely not the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems. It's got some great new ideas but it's also very easy to see where it could be improved. No doubt Windows 9 will do for 8 what 7 did for Vista. However, having used it for months I do believe that it is a better operating systems than Win7 and we will still see many changes and improvements before release. It certainly is suited to desktop usage and Metro Start is obviously designed for use with mouse as well as touch.

Windows 8 is for tablets. Enough said.

To claim that Windows 8 is for tablets because it has been improved for touch is likely claiming that McDonald's is a chicken restaurant because they sell chicken nuggets - the primary usage is still the same, it has just made accommodations to other groups to increase market appeal. It's a disingenuous slight, used typically without any supporting evidence as an emotional response to change.

[anarkhy]

Windows 8 is a transition os, so just keep using 7 until there is enough apps running the new interface.

[Darrian]

XP was a decent operating system but it really wasn't a huge jump from Windows 2000. The biggest change was the interface - it was bright and garish, which never appealed to me. I'm well aware that XP was the first NT-based operating system designed for consumers but the point remains that there was nothing to stop the same people from running Windows 2000, which was exactly what I did. Windows 2000 is not comparable to ME because it didn't suffer the instability issues that plagued ME - heck, I remember when I first installed ME that it crashed during the install.

Windows 8 is definitely not the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems. It's got some great new ideas but it's also very easy to see where it could be improved. No doubt Windows 9 will do for 8 what 7 did for Vista. However, having used it for months I do believe that it is a better operating systems than Win7 and we will still see many changes and improvements before release. It certainly is suited to desktop usage and Metro Start is obviously designed for use with mouse as well as touch.

I'm not at all advocating that you should have used Me, instead. However, not upgrading to XP seems ridiculous. It had no compatibility issues in regards to upgrading from 2000 and enough new features to make it worth it. Hell, I would have upgraded to XP simply because it starts up a lot faster.

I never said anything about Windows 8 being the ultimate in OSes. However, it is improved enough from 7 that it's worth the upgrade. If you don't want to use it then wait for 9, but 9 will probably not have the start menu brought back and will probably still have the start screen. Whether you like it or not, 8 will soon be the flagship OS. Only time will tell if it's successful or not.

[Nashy]

I have no idea what's not "clean" about it. The background pattern can be changed or disabled entirely, while the tiles and their text are equally sized for a consistent layout (in the same way that icons are). To call it a "a heap of ****" is an entirely emotional stance and not based on the merits of the interface.

Where do people get the idea that XP was so great? It had some of the most serious security breaches in the history of operating systems, while it's bright blue oversized interface was widely derided for being childish. It improved over time but it's revisionist history to argue that it was "the greatest".

XP was a decent operating system but it really wasn't a huge jump from Windows 2000. The biggest change was the interface - it was bright and garish, which never appealed to me. I'm well aware that XP was the first NT-based operating system designed for consumers but the point remains that there was nothing to stop the same people from running Windows 2000, which was exactly what I did. Windows 2000 is not comparable to ME because it didn't suffer the instability issues that plagued ME - heck, I remember when I first installed ME that it crashed during the install.

Windows 8 is definitely not the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems. It's got some great new ideas but it's also very easy to see where it could be improved. No doubt Windows 9 will do for 8 what 7 did for Vista. However, having used it for months I do believe that it is a better operating systems than Win7 and we will still see many changes and improvements before release. It certainly is suited to desktop usage and Metro Start is obviously designed for use with mouse as well as touch.

To claim that Windows 8 is for tablets because it has been improved for touch is likely claiming that McDonald's is a chicken restaurant because they sell chicken nuggets - the primary usage is still the same, it has just made accommodations to other groups to increase market appeal. It's a disingenuous slight, used typically without any supporting evidence as an emotional response to change.

Na mate. They've made it a tablet OS that can somewhat be used on a PC with a keyboard and mouse. To think any other way just means you use your computer in a different way to me. XP was as solid as a rock.

Yeah it looks all clean, but not as clean as my start menu. So I still think it looks crap. I'm not going to talk of the merits of the new UI, because I think it's a step in the wrong direction. I think it's crap. I hate it. I won't buy it. And I personally think Microsoft forcing me to use a tablet OS is unacceptable. I hope it flops, I hope big business and corporations tell them how crap it is, and just how much money they're going to lose if they don't remember the very users that made them all of their money. PC users.

How other people use their PC is irrelevant. Plenty of us hate it for very, very, very valid reasons. Plenty love it for very valid reasons. The way I use my computer, WIndows 8 is about as useful as a bucket full of cat ****. And I think at the moment, I'd still take the bucket over Windows 8. That's how much I hate using it, that's how much of a hassle it is when I'm using it, and that's my thoughts on the OS.

I don't care if I can type this, type that, do this, do that to get the same function I can from clicking my start menu. I don't give a **** to be honest. The way I use my computer is not up to Microsoft or a heap of Neowin fanboys to tell me, it's up to ME.

I will continue to say MS has completely dropped the ball on this, and I still think MS is going to be in for a rude shock when their marketshare drops a considerable amount.

[Dot Matrix]

Na mate. They've made it a tablet OS that can somewhat be used on a PC with a keyboard and mouse. To think any other way just means you use your computer in a different way to me. XP was as solid as a rock.

Yeah it looks all clean, but not as clean as my start menu. So I still think it looks crap. I'm not going to talk of the merits of the new UI, because I think it's a step in the wrong direction. I think it's crap. I hate it. I won't buy it. And I personally think Microsoft forcing me to use a tablet OS is unacceptable. I hope it flops, I hope big business and corporations tell them how crap it is, and just how much money they're going to lose if they don't remember the very users that made them all of their money. PC users.

How other people use their PC is irrelevant. Plenty of us hate it for very, very, very valid reasons. Plenty love it for very valid reasons. The way I use my computer, WIndows 8 is about as useful as a bucket full of cat ****. And I think at the moment, I'd still take the bucket over Windows 8. That's how much I hate using it, that's how much of a hassle it is when I'm using it, and that's my thoughts on the OS.

I don't care if I can type this, type that, do this, do that to get the same function I can from clicking my start menu. I don't give a **** to be honest. The way I use my computer is not up to Microsoft or a heap of Neowin fanboys to tell me, it's up to ME.

I will continue to say MS has completely dropped the ball on this, and I still think MS is going to be in for a rude shock when their marketshare drops a considerable amount.

Then I guess you're done using Windows. I don't understand your logic behind the amount of BS you write... If Windows 8 still "flops", the Start Menu still isn't coming back, Metro will be more ever present in Windows 9, and Microsoft isn't going see a drop in market share.

Desktops are evolving, and it's nice to have an OS that will be there to meet those changes.

[Nashy]

I've told you in another thread why I don't care about your replies on this subject, it doesn't change just because I'm in a different thread. You love it, that's great. I hate it and you don't like me for that.

If MS see that its a flop, the start menu may well come back. So yeah, once support for 7 is gone, if MS don't fix this tablet BS, it won't be goodbye, it will be good riddance.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Without the Start button you cannot start any of your programs and games, Microsoft wants you to only purchase everything from their "app store" and spent thousands a year or you wont be able to use your PC anymore.

... what

[Dot Matrix]

I've told you in another thread why I don't care about your replies on this subject, it doesn't change just because I'm in a different thread. You love it, that's great. I hate it and you don't like me for that.

If MS see that its a flop, the start menu may well come back. So yeah, once support for 7 is gone, if MS don't fix this tablet BS, it won't be goodbye, it will be good riddance.

There's no need for it anymore. It's gone dude.

[Dot Matrix]

I've told you in another thread why I don't care about your replies on this subject, it doesn't change just because I'm in a different thread. You love it, that's great. I hate it and you don't like me for that.

If MS see that its a flop, the start menu may well come back. So yeah, once support for 7 is gone, if MS don't fix this tablet BS, it won't be goodbye, it will be good riddance.

There's no need for it anymore. It's gone dude.

[Dot Matrix]

I've told you in another thread why I don't care about your replies on this subject, it doesn't change just because I'm in a different thread. You love it, that's great. I hate it and you don't like me for that.

If MS see that its a flop, the start menu may well come back. So yeah, once support for 7 is gone, if MS don't fix this tablet BS, it won't be goodbye, it will be good riddance.

There's no need for it anymore. It's gone dude.

[Daniel_Pooh]

... what

This is is what it means Start button to "Start" the program, you dont need to pin anything or type in the name of your program you can just "Start" it because its already there in a nice small menu.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

This is is what it means Start button to "Start" the program, you dont need to pin anything or type in the name of your program you can just "Start" it because its already there in a nice small menu.

once again ... what

the start button doesn't start programs, it's the round orb with a flag in it that opens the menu that starts programs

oh and you can do what you described in the start screen too, the "All Programs" list didn't go away