Windows 8 Start Screen is horrible


Recommended Posts

The impression that I get is that it's more than a few. Visit a forum with a bit more balance and you'll see it. And when I pay for something, I do have the right to expect it to work how I want it to.

Bitch an moan. The Start menu is morphed live with it. I personally have grown to appreciate and like it. MS is smart in offering it cheap right now to migrate over. If you've not tried it. I don't mean the Consumer preview, get the Retail for 40.00. It's a steal. It's blind robbery if you get it for 15. side by side on the same hardware, Windows 8 kills Windows 7 in performance. Sorry it's just facts. I've cleaned installed on two laptops both Win7 and Win8 to find Win8 being better to work with. Also finding that really the only thing that appears to have changed is the morphed start menu. Everything is essentially where it always was. Just gotta click a little more.

Windows 8 provides a different way to use windows. I'm still finding some things I don't like though but overall it's not a big deal.

It's really a poor redesign of apple's old 'At Ease' environment, except unlike 'At Ease' it's overly complicated and has a horrible workflow often times taking many more click to get anything. Microsoft can't really be serious about keeping this on windows 9 can they? They had to have put it on windows 8 to promote windows RT development for a couple years while they catch up with apple, right? Everything about this is just wrong. I tried to like it, I really did, it's just horrible. It belongs on a tablet and no where else. How can any of you defend having two parallel environments where the new one is far inferior to the old one?

Oh look, more bitching about the Start screen. There hasn't been like 700 million threads about this already.

And fanboy minds think Microsoft is good now just because it has adapted the same disgusting company model of Apple.

Umm, pardon me, Apple happens to be the most valuable company in the world, ahead of friggin Exxon. You can call Apple's company model "disgusting", but hey, it works.

As far as the original thread, if the OP doesn't care for Windows 8, that individual should simply use another operating system. Life goes on.

This is why I don't understand many people (not all) whom dislike Windows 8.

You clearly stated in the first post that metro was meant for tablets. Why then, do you not just go straight into desktop and stay there? What on earth keeps people compelled to use metro rather than the desktop on a PC?????????

The idea of Windows 8 is that we have one OS for several devices. Depending on the device, we use Windows 8 differently. If you are on a PC, you will use the desktop most of the time. The only reason (I'm sure there are others but can't think of them atm) you'd need to use Metro on a PC is to search or go to a new app and that is the the same thing as Windows 7 - press windows key and type. That is it.

The impression that I get is that it's more than a few. Visit a forum with a bit more balance and you'll see it. And when I pay for something, I do have the right to expect it to work how I want it to.

No, sorry, that's not how it goes. You buy something and have a right to expect it to work for you. Not how you want it. Besides, the Start Screen works just the same as the Start Menu. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

  • Like 1
Besides, the Start Screen works just the same as the Start Menu. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

I can understand why people don't like the Start Screen but as you say nothing has changed fundamentally. In fact you now have much greater customisation and it can display considerably more items than the old Start Menu. It is designed for launching applications, which it does very well. All I would say is that the All Apps menu shouldn't be hidden behind and mouse click and buried in the bottom right-hand corner - it should be immediately visible and located in the bottom-left corner. The icons could also be larger for x86-64 applications, as there is a lot of wasted space.

I imagine the Start Screen will receive some attention before Windows 9.

The impression that I get is that it's more than a few. Visit a forum with a bit more balance and you'll see it. And when I pay for something, I do have the right to expect it to work how I want it to.

So don't pay for it and stop your constant moaning. If you've already bought it then you did so knowing that there's no Start menu so, again, stop grizzling like a spoilt child.

So don't pay for it and stop your constant moaning. If you've already bought it then you did so knowing that there's no Start menu so, again, stop grizzling like a spoilt child.

Sorry, Neowin isn't your forum so you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do.

No, sorry, that's not how it goes. You buy something and have a right to expect it to work for you. Not how you want it. Besides, the Start Screen works just the same as the Start Menu. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

Nothing has changed? Whatever you're smoking, keep it away from me.

Sorry, Neowin isn't your forum so you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do.

Nothing has changed? Whatever you're smoking, keep it away from me.

Name one thing the old start menu did that the new start screen doesn't? You can't, because there's nothing from the old start menu that can't be done exactly the same way on the new start screen.

Name one thing the old start menu did that the new start screen doesn't? You can't, because there's nothing from the old start menu that can't be done exactly the same way on the new start screen.

It didn't slap me in the face when I stated my computer for starters, it arranged items into folders rather than just slapping them on a screen of endless icons, and it wasn't made with boringly dull gradients.

Name one thing the old start menu did that the new start screen doesn't? You can't, because there's nothing from the old start menu that can't be done exactly the same way on the new start screen.

Jump list.

Once you setup the start screen and arrange pinned programs to your liking, you can actually navigate to open programs faster vs. the start menu.

This. With just the mouse, hit the bottom left corner of the screen and then click on the big shiny button for your programs/shortcuts. I can launch my apps quickly with the start screen just because I can remember from visual memory where stuff are pinned. I don't have to navigate a bunch of menus and folders and maybe accidentally closing the nested folder because I moved my mouse a pixel too far.

Maybe its just because I rarely used the old start menu and usually just have everything i commonly used pinned on the taskbar or desktop. It's funny that I actually use win8 start screen more than the old start menu. Maybe its because I find it intuitive and fun to use.

The learning curve is pretty low IMO, child's play even. Took me maybe half an hour to learn everything about the start screen. I don't feel like its any harder to use compared to the start menu. It's functionally the same for launching programs and searching stuff. It just looks different, that's all. Also I don't use any of the metro apps. I use win8 the same way I did win7.

When it comes down to it, Windows 8 is overall the better OS. Its snappier on my old core2duo(6 years old), drivers work flawlessly out of the box, explorer improvements are great and dare I say IMPROVED the way of launching programs. But of course that's only my opinion. There will always be haters/critics.

Edit: oh I forgot to add, Start screen takes more clicks? If you pinned all your most used system utilities, software, folders etc, it only takes 2 clicks! Click corner to open start screen then click app, done! If you wanna see all the installed programs, with keyboard hit Win+W and BAM! ALL of it displayed at once in alphabetical order and you can search em too! Just 1 click from there! NO IDEA where the extra clicks are coming from. MAYBE its hard if you're using touchpad on a laptop, but then its your own damn fault. That crap is tough to use no matter what OS.

Nothing has changed? Whatever you're smoking, keep it away from me.

Really? Then something doesn't add up here... You can clearly see the that Start did not loose functionality in the slightest, and gained functionality that the old Menu cannot provide in it's "current" (Windows 7) form.

post-420821-0-30834400-1352603766.png

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!