212 replies to this topic 5 votes

[Luis Mazza]

Quote

Steven Sinofsky, on the other hand, explained during the Windows 8 launch conference that it’s just a matter of time until people get used to the new Start Screen.

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?

[Tyler R.]

Dot Matrix, on 16 November 2012 - 19:20, said:

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.

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.

[Detection]

jamieakers, on 16 November 2012 - 19:13, said:

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???

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

[Javik]

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

[S7un7]

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.

[Orange Battery]

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.

[Pygmy_Hippo]

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....

[Shane Nokes]

S7un7, on 16 November 2012 - 19:40, said:

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.

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.

[LaP]

+Ichigo+, on 16 November 2012 - 19:30, said:

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.

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

+ViperAFK said:

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.

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.

[HawkMan]

Tyler R., on 16 November 2012 - 19:22, said:

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?

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.

[winlonghorn]

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).

[AR556]

Tyler R., on 16 November 2012 - 18:55, said:

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.

Good post!

[Arceles]

ViperAFK, on 16 November 2012 - 18:58, said:

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.

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.

[CSharp.]

Dot Matrix, on 16 November 2012 - 19:20, said:

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.

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?!

Attached Images

• 
• 

[Dot Matrix]

Luis Mazza, on 16 November 2012 - 19:31, said:

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?

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.