Jump to content

213 posts in this topic

Posted

[quote name='LaP' timestamp='1353092414' post='595325718']
You greatly underestimate the number of desktop PC in the corporate world running WIndows XP but having a Windows Vista license sticker on the top or side of the case.
[/quote]

No I don't but that number isn't even close to most of the vista sales, as I said, there was a lot of corporate installed that got downgraded, but not even remotely close to most.

[quote name='LaP' timestamp='1353093253' post='595325758']
Yep but 7 will be the next XP of the corporate world so those 7 computers will run 7 one day if it's not already done ;)
[/quote]

The thing is, corporates have this thing called upgrade cycles. The reason a lot didn't use Vista as because XP had been around for at least two upgrade cycles, and there was major compatibility issues between the XP and Vista+ OS'.

but not, corps use everything from XP(though shrinking now thankfully) to Vista, to 7 and now a lot are even moving to 8 since they are in the upgrade cycle now. there was a surprising high percentage of corps that had actually decided to switch to 8 in the recent article, and an even more surprisingly high number of corps who where considering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Brando212' timestamp='1353088790' post='595325548']
cluster**** how so? Start8 seems to have done it just fine
[/quote]

Creates an even bigger discontinuity. Windows is moving to the Metro side of things, slowly but surely. You certainly shouldn't need to go through one to get to the other.


[quote name='Tyler R.' timestamp='1353092123' post='595325708']
It's much easier on a touch screen. On larger monitors and multiple monitors it's cludgie and unintuitive. Metro was designed for touch screens in mind--If it not, then why are they pushing ultra books and aio's with touch screens so hard?

Dot--let's have a mature conversation about Metro and the desktop. We want more options and more polish on the desktop. We want more features in the default apps that were killed in the the previous version--aka "simplifying the UI by removing good features". Microsoft did a hack job on the desktop part of the UI, which is where most of the disappointed people, like myself spend most of their time. It's goofy having two control panels, it's goofy having two IE's, It's goofy having two ways to listen to music (WMP and Music apps), it's goofy how Metro and desktop apps don't talk to each other. (I make a bookmark in Desktop IE--why doesn't it show up in Metro IE? You stated before that they are different api's. I'm not a programmer, but couldn't they write an api to talk to the metro and desktop api's?), amongst other things you've probably heard before. If it was truly an immersive experience, I'd rarely have to touch the desktop. I should be able to rip a CD as FLAC, WAV or mp3 in the music app, or transfer a file to my hard drive (metro windows explorer) , there should be only one IE, or at least 2 that talk to each other, there should be only one control panel that forces companies to drop their legacy code and rewrite it for the future or make people stop useing old programs--like Boarman. Why can't I have 1 app on each monitor in a multi monitor setup? Because it was made for tablets--tablets have one screen. Are you starting to understand what we mean by "cludgie" and "unintuitive"? If Microsoft fixes this in Windows 9, I'd be more than happy to buy a license. Don't get me wrong: Metro brings lots of new features to the table that are awesome, but some things need to be fixed before some of us adopt it. Thanks Dot.
[/quote]

I am being mature. Even if you don't use Metro apps, and only pin Win32 icons, the Start Screen is still a bigger and better experience than the old Start Menu. You still have beautiful tiles laid out the way you want to and not hacked and thrown together in a kludgy, hard to see, menu.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='jamieakers' timestamp='1353093225' post='595325752']
And here we go again. Yet another pointless thread about the Start screen. This is getting so old. We get it, some people like it, some people hate it. How many times do we need to have this thread repeated on Neowin???
[/quote]

It's not a start screen thread. It's a news thread about Microsoft bringing back the Start Menu, albeit of topic.


[quote name='HawkMan' timestamp='1353093320' post='595325762']
Having used it on a touch screen, no it's not, at worst it's just as easy to use on both. But it works excellently with a mouse and keyboard, in many ways better than on touch.
[/quote]

I'm not arguing. What I stated is what I believe. Everyone has their different view---if you like it use it! If you don't, use 7 like me and all the others here. :) But out of curiosity, what works better on the desktop than on a tablet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='scaramonga' timestamp='1353079197' post='595325176']
This ^^^^

My new slogan for Windows 8 is:

[i]'Windows 8, there's a third party app for that'[/i]
[/quote]

Don't quit your day job, if you have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was like WFT when I first tested the start screen, but then I got used to it. Things change and we need to learn to move ahead. The new start screen make is easier for people to find what they want, and because of the live tiles have updates to the things that interest them that they did not have before. I did not see this much complaining when ISP decided to drop dial up in favour of highspeed. If you don't like it thats fine, keep it to yourself and don't use windows 8. I don't like toast, but do you see me going all over neowin complaining about it.No you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote]Steven Sinofsky, on the other hand, explained during the Windows 8 launch conference that it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Dot Matrix' timestamp='1353093649' post='595325784']
I am being mature. Even if you don't use Metro apps, and only pin Win32 icons, the Start Screen is still a bigger and better experience than the old Start Menu. You still have beautiful tiles laid out the way you want to and not hacked and thrown together in a kludgy, hard to see, menu.
[/quote]

I never said you were being immature. :) I just didn't want you to take the following the wrong way and turn into a bash contest. I have no problem pinning all my win32 apps---and you're right: you get a tiny 16x16 icon on the start menu, and a pretty 32x32 icon on the start screen. My issues are not with the start screen, but with the issues listed above in my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='jamieakers' timestamp='1353093225' post='595325752']
And here we go again. Yet another pointless thread about the Start screen. This is getting so old. We get it, some people like it, some people hate it. How many times do we need to have this thread repeated on Neowin???
[/quote]

And here we go again, yet another person replying without reading the main post, because if you had read it, you would have realised this was not started as an opinion on the start menu/screen thread, but a rumour that MS might be bringing the start menu back :/
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I really can't see this happening. I'd love to see it but I doubt we will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's easy for a computer geek to say there is no need for MS to put the start menu back in because there are plenty of 3rd party apps to do that. Remember though, the average Joe knows nothing about these programs. Therefore when they see Windows 8 without a start button they either love it or hate it. Joe needs to be told how to download and configure these 3rd party applications. If Joe does not see the start button or the option to EASILY put it back, MS could have just lost Joe's sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think MS should have given users the option like they did with XP's start menu and the classic one.

The Windows Desktop is so practical for a desktop PC and Windows Phone's UI would have been great for a tablet's.

Instead we got something that feels like third party software pulling out everything in you start menu and sticking it on a page, complete disregard for the silly options which are added by many programs such as help files and uninstallers for the old start menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Back in the early 90's I ignored Windows, 'cause let's face it GUI's are for girls - if you want to do anything serious on a pc it has to be done at a command line prompt. All my friends felt the same and we fought like hell against the babyish non-productive GUI.

Plus ca change.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='S7un7' timestamp='1353094826' post='595325844']
It's easy for a computer geek to say there is no need for MS to put the start menu back in because there are plenty of 3rd party apps to do that. Remember though, the average Joe knows nothing about these programs. Therefore when they see Windows 8 without a start button they either love it or hate it. Joe needs to be told how to download and configure these 3rd party applications. If Joe does not see the start button or the option to EASILY put it back, MS could have just lost Joe's sale.
[/quote]

That's why if you're in the store they have folks on hand to show you how to use things, and if you're a home user it shows a tutorial telling you where things are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='+Ichigo+' timestamp='1353094252' post='595325814']
I was like WFT when I first tested the start screen, but then I got used to it. Things change and we need to learn to move ahead.
[/quote]

I totally agree with you. My problem with the start screen is not the lack of start menu. It's how some people act like the start screen is awesome and the best thing since sliced bread.

The start menu was not great. But nobody ever acted like it was. It was there. People used it here and there. Nothing more nothing less. It did not make or break Windows.

Now it's like that ****** start screen is the second coming of god. Nobody can't say anything bad about it without being flamed to death. Ok ok i'm overreacting here but not by much.

I really agree with ViperAFK who probably explain it better than i would with my bad english

[quote name='+ViperAFK']
That said the start screen could certainly be a lot better, it lacks several features that could make it much more enjoyable to use. For example, re-arranging the tiles in the way that I want is freakin' impossible! moving one tile will make one move where I don't want it to etc... its a mess. And why can't we manually make/customize tile groups and such? It could be pretty nice if they allowed more customization IMO.[/quote]

Right now for me that start screen is like a glorified start menu. It's there. I use it. But it's not awesome. It's just more right in your ******* face than the start menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Tyler R.' timestamp='1353093739' post='595325786']
I'm not arguing. What I stated is what I believe. Everyone has their different view---if you like it use it! If you don't, use 7 like me and all the others here. :) But out of curiosity, what works better on the desktop than on a tablet?
[/quote]

Start screen search
clicking, mouse is still faster to move to the right place than moving your whole hand. one of them you move a few mm, the other you move across the whole screen.
scrolling the screen is pretty much a tie, though I prefer the wheel on the mouse because it doesn't cover the whole screen with my hand when I scroll.
right clicking the tiles for modifying and such works a lot better than the press and hold.
moving tiles around, same thing as above, easier to move the tiles with a mouse than with touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I doubt that it will happen. It would basically unravel any hope of developers taking the initiative to adopt their new platform and would equate to nothing short of an admission of defeat (which shouldn't occur considering that the Start Screen is awesome).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Tyler R.' timestamp='1353092123' post='595325708']
It's much easier on a touch screen. On larger monitors and multiple monitors it's cludgie and unintuitive. Metro was designed for touch screens in mind--If it not, then why are they pushing ultra books and aio's with touch screens so hard?

Dot--let's have a mature conversation about Metro and the desktop. We want more options and more polish on the desktop. We want more features in the default apps that were killed in the the previous version--aka "simplifying the UI by removing good features". Microsoft did a hack job on the desktop part of the UI, which is where most of the disappointed people, like myself spend most of their time. It's goofy having two control panels, it's goofy having two IE's, It's goofy having two ways to listen to music (WMP and Music apps), it's goofy how Metro and desktop apps don't talk to each other. (I make a bookmark in Desktop IE--why doesn't it show up in Metro IE? You stated before that they are different api's. I'm not a programmer, but couldn't they write an api to talk to the metro and desktop api's?), amongst other things you've probably heard before. If it was truly an immersive experience, I'd rarely have to touch the desktop. I should be able to rip a CD as FLAC, WAV or mp3 in the music app, or transfer a file to my hard drive (metro windows explorer) , there should be only one IE, or at least 2 that talk to each other, there should be only one control panel that forces companies to drop their legacy code and rewrite it for the future or make people stop useing old programs--like Boarman. Why can't I have 1 app on each monitor in a multi monitor setup? Because it was made for tablets--tablets have one screen. Are you starting to understand what we mean by "cludgie" and "unintuitive"? If Microsoft fixes this in Windows 9, I'd be more than happy to buy a license. Don't get me wrong: Metro brings lots of new features to the table that are awesome, but some things need to be fixed before some of us adopt it. Thanks Dot.
[/quote]

Good post!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='ViperAFK' timestamp='1353092338' post='595325712']
Start8 still lacks several features that the windows 7 start menu had, such as drag and drop to the desktop or superbar. In addition its kind of buggy, it likes to randomly crash explorer and the search results sometimes bug out.

After trying start8 it made me realize that I actually like the start screen (as a start menu replacement, I think that the current metro apps are pretty terrible (almost beta quality), and am not a fan of it being a closed platform)

That said the start screen could certainly be a lot better, it lacks several features that could make it much more enjoyable to use. For example, re-arranging the tiles in the way that I want is freakin' impossible! moving one tile will make one move where I don't want it to etc... its a mess. And why can't we manually make/customize tile groups and such? It could be pretty nice if they allowed more customization IMO.
[/quote]

You are pretty much lying, I'm a win8 user since it went RTM, first thing I used was start8 that while buggy, on version 0.9+ has been extremely stable, versions 1.0+ (available when win8 turned to general availability) are even far more stable and usable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Dot Matrix' timestamp='1353093649' post='595325784']Even if you don't use Metro apps, and only pin Win32 icons, the Start Screen is still a bigger and better experience than the old Start Menu. You still have beautiful tiles laid out the way you want to and not hacked and thrown together in a kludgy, hard to see, menu.
[/quote]
The icons for legacy apps aren't really that much larger (if indeed larger at all) on the Start Screen than they were in the Start menu?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Luis Mazza' timestamp='1353094280' post='595325818']
The caveat is that today, people have tons of choices and they're much, much more spoiled than 15 years ago. Thus, the Start Button was an improvement over the lack of it, not a substitution like the Start Screen, be it "better" (for some) or not... It is a matter of preference and as a preference, there should be available the classic option.

Why provide ugly old themes and not the Start Button?
[/quote]

Code bloat? Also, Windows 8 is a special case, it's a clean break from the days of old. Microsoft has spent the past few years, reinventing itself, and as per Sinofsky's leave, is still continuing.

Then there's the technical reasons that have been listed ad nauseum elsewhere online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='LaP' timestamp='1353095363' post='595325880']
I totally agree with you. My problem with the start screen is not the lack of start menu. It's how some people act like the start screen is awesome and the best thing since sliced bread.

The start menu was not great. But nobody ever acted like it was. It was there. People used it here and there. Nothing more nothing less. It did not make or break Windows.

Now it's like that ****** start screen is the second coming of god. Nobody can't say anything bad about it without being flamed to death. Ok ok i'm overreacting here but not by much.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone is treating it like the second coming of anything.

People are bashing it pretty hard and the point that we are making is that there's no need for the start menu with the start screen there. All of the functions are there, with the addition of live tiles. That makes for a pretty nice upgrade over the old functionality.

There's nothing praising it like a messiah, but pointing out that people who are like 'doom and gloom' are being ridiculous about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='CSharp.' timestamp='1353095648' post='595325900']
The icons for legacy apps aren't really that much larger (if indeed larger at all) on the Start Screen than they were in the Start menu?!
[/quote]

I was hinting at the "all apps" menu, but yes, the classic icons are still 32x32, but even then are displayed in (IMO) beautiful tiles that can be customized per the user. With the Start Menu, they all exist together. With the Start Screen, I can separate them into easier to read and see categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='neufuse' timestamp='1353077884' post='595325106']


the problem isn't "getting it" the problem is how its done... its a full screen app.. works fine on tablets, but on a desktop can get annoying if you work 99% of your day in non-full screen apps on a well desktop mode desktop... you need a smaller version of the start screen in the desktop mode that can be taken full screen if you want it
[/quote]

OK so I'll go along with this partially, but on your desktop you don't have to use the modern UI apps - you can use your normal desktop apps and the only difference is the start screen. The thing here is the old start screen didn't take up the whole screen, BUT I do not see the benefit of this or the negative of a full screen start screen, simply because when you had the start screen open you couldn't interact with any of your desktop stuff without the start menu closing. the only difference is the new start screen is full screen with no usability impact (well little, depending on how much you used the start menu and customised it and how little you used taskbar pinning).

So we have one issue here then, running modern UI apps on a large desktop PC isn't to your tastes, but the modern UI 'language' doesn't mean this has to be the case, a well designed modern app will show more info/data/pics/posts/tweets/game screen etc. You can show two at once with snapping but I get it if you still don't like the full screen apps in the modern UI, its a preference of yours. So don't, just use desktop apps, pin them to taskbar or open them from start screen from a tile or type to find or do what loads of none techys do and add desktop shortcuts - the only thing that's changed for your workflow is the visual appearance of the start menu/screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Dot Matrix' timestamp='1353095716' post='595325902']
Code bloat? Also, Windows 8 is a special case, it's a clean break from the days of old. Microsoft has spent the past few years, reinventing itself, and as per Sinofsky's leave, is still continuing.

Then there's the technical reasons that have been listed ad nauseum elsewhere online.
[/quote]

Code bloat is having undesired features that people are not responding well on a DESKTOP.

There are no technical issues to implement this, don't be such a fanboy...

Microsoft should give what users want and shut up.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ms, just bring it back. It'll please tons of people.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.