5 Reasons To Get Over The Hype And Start Loving Windows 8.1

[threetonesun]

Here's the problem Romero, that's extra work for no good reason. They've taken a step backwards in functionality. That's what's frustrating a lot of people. This is the first time a major Windows upgrade removed functionality and made you do more mundane work. That's the crux of the some of the vehement resistance. Users have bolstered the Wintel platform and supported Microsoft and now you start wasting my time (and by extension) money, because you screwed up.

 

The challenge now is to keep those users from being irreparably alienated while MS fixes things. Clearly while it seems minor to users who had the functionality in 7, it's no small task to bring these things to 8 and/or WinRT, or I'm sure MS would be doing it at a much faster pace. Again, it's no one's fault except Microsoft and their management. All they can do is keep working in the right direction, throw bones (discounts and free stuff) to appease users till they get it right. At least that's what I would do.

 

It's better to never give a person a thing, than to give it to them and then take it away.

 

So, I use Windows 8, the machine is currently running a VM of Linux Mint for web testing purposes, I can fire up a game if I get bored, it streams to my Apple TV through iTunes, I have dual monitors hooked up to it, and I run Metro apps shrunk down on the second monitor and get a number of apps that never existed in Windows before (I'm looking at you, Twitter).

 

Oh, also it's faster than Windows 7, and my start screen is a picture of a giant space cat which I (occasionally see).

 

Also we got a Windows 8 PC for my Grandfather, and he can finally figure out how to look at pictures and loves the new solitaire app.

 

But yeah, Windows 8 sucks, or something. 

[techbeck]

Microsoft simply needs to separate the 2 and have Metro OS and Windows 9 Desktop and be done with it.

 

Allow us to customize and have a productive desktop OS and use Metro OS for tablets and other mobile devices. 

 

I wish...but all it is is wishful thinking.

[Romero]

Here's the problem Romero, that's extra work for no good reason. ... This is the first time a major Windows upgrade removed functionality and made you do more mundane work.

 

I mostly agree with the first but not last sentence above. The traditional apps are still there and aren't going away overnight. At this early point in Metro UI's existence, especially on a desktop PC, I simply treat it as an addendum i.e. a few apps you can occasionally use but also completely ignore if you prefer. You can simply stick to using the Start screen and desktop apps, or get rid of the former too using third party Start menu software. As such, I fail to see what you mean by "removed functionality"? On the desktop side which is the only thing you can compare, I don't see what Win7 can do that Win8 can't. The Metro apps are an entirely different class solely present in Win8 and I don't think right now even Microsoft quite knows what form or shape they'll grow into over time. At this stage I feel expecting the same sort of maturity of the desktop UI in Metro apps doesn't make sense. Not saying they don't need to iterate fast, but really except for on Windows RT what Metro apps are you using that don't have better desktop counterparts at present? I'm sure as Metro improves things like auto-start will be implemented, but till then personally at least I don't even care because (taking your example) I have far better mail clients I prefer than bothering with the Mail app.

 

I'll admit, it does sound a bit exaggerated, but in all honesty here's what happened.  I booted it for the first time, and opened the weather application, and then realized that there was no "X" button anywhere to close the application.  There was no built-in exit button or other obvious method by which to return to the Start screen, so I basically just fumbled around for about 30 seconds until I pushed my mouse into the top right corner.  To me at least, it just seemed odd.

 

Well that's actually somewhat understandable, but it would have made much more sense if you had talked about multi-tasking in Metro specifically rather than making the frankly ridiculous claim that Win8 as a whole doesn't support multi-tasking as well as Win7 or Linux. Even Metro does support some amount of rudimentary multi-tasking with snapping, but in general the paradigm is more geared towards one full-screen app at a time. You can still get by with not opening a single Metro app in Win8 on a desktop PC though and do things the old way you've been used to for years.

[MorganX]

I mostly agree with the first but not last sentence above. The traditional apps are still there and aren't going away overnight. At this early point in Metro UI's existence, especially on a desktop PC, I simply treat it as an addendum i.e. a few apps you can occasionally use but also completely ignore if you prefer. You can simply stick to using the Start screen and desktop apps, or get rid of the former too using third party Start menu software. As such, I fail to see what you mean by "removed functionality"? On the desktop side which is the only thing you can compare, I don't see what Win7 can do that Win8 can't. The Metro apps are an entirely different class solely present in Win8 and I don't think right now even Microsoft quite knows what form or shape they'll grow into over time. At this stage I feel expecting the same sort of maturity of the desktop UI in Metro apps doesn't make sense. Not saying they don't need to iterate fast, but really except for on Windows RT what Metro apps are you using that don't have better desktop counterparts at present? I'm sure as Metro improves things like auto-start will be implemented, but till then personally at least I don't even care because (taking your example) I have far better mail clients I prefer than bothering with the Mail app.

 

That's mostly a consumer thing, core apps lack functionality. It's debatable whether or not users can complain since technically they were removed from the OS and are free downloadables.

 

Other than people with Start Menu/Page issues, and it does take getting used to, the Desktop Environment in 8 is clearly a worthy and recommendable upgrade to 7. However, the challenges the Modern UI and such bring, at this point it may not be worth it for many (us included) to bother with an enterprise deployment at this time, in it's current state.

[MorganX]

So, I use Windows 8, the machine is currently running a VM of Linux Mint for web testing purposes, I can fire up a game if I get bored, it streams to my Apple TV through iTunes, I have dual monitors hooked up to it, and I run Metro apps shrunk down on the second monitor and get a number of apps that never existed in Windows before (I'm looking at you, Twitter).

 

Oh, also it's faster than Windows 7, and my start screen is a picture of a giant space cat which I (occasionally see).

 

Also we got a Windows 8 PC for my Grandfather, and he can finally figure out how to look at pictures and loves the new solitaire app.

 

But yeah, Windows 8 sucks, or something. 

 

I don't disagree with any of that. And I personally try to be specific with the issues that irritate me.

 

I don't get into the old grandparent thing on either side of the debate, and I personally have never said Windows 8 sucks. It has quite a few issues on the desktop and I acknowledge that. I use Windows 8 and actually use Mail as my primary personal mail client. It's only lacking feature, and it is a big one is the inability to perform actions on search results. The need to use an MS account is an issue in the enterprise. No auto-start is also a problem.

 

Correction 8.0 RTM did suck, 8.1 is much better. I run 8 on 2 x 27" and the more granular snap is great.

I wish...but all it is is wishful thinking.

 

I believe they will to an extent separate the two. I do believe and hope they allow the virtual elimination of Modern UI elements through GPOs, and make it easier to control store apps and connection/disconnection of MS accounts, or something along those lines. The appear to be clearly headed in that direction it's just a matter of how long it will take.

[PGHammer]

I thought that Microsoft going touch/tablet and desktop OS in one could work. 

 

Unfortunately I was wrong and so was Microsoft.

 

The biggest issue I have with Windows 8/8.1 is in fact the complete mix of touch and desktop paradigms in UX. 

 

Microsoft simply needs to separate the 2 and have Metro OS and Windows 9 Desktop and be done with it.

 

Allow us to customize and have a productive desktop OS and use Metro OS for tablets and other mobile devices. 

 

This whole, shove it up our noses and hope it goes through, is not working. 

 

 

I personally don't hate Windows 8.1 . I think it's faster and smoother in many aspects than any other WIndows before it.. I just think that UI is garbage, Metro is terrible on desktop and just doesn't belong there and the whole flat thing on desktop just doesn't work. 

 

 

Let's hope Window 9 is desktop only UI and Metro is separated.  I still don't understand the purpose of Sufrace Pro.. there are plenty of super slick, thin, light laptops with touchscreens that can competely replace Surface Pro for anyone who needs a full blown desktop OS with touch support. I bet you most people who use Surface Pro use it as a laptop 99% of the time. 

 

So pushing this Metro/desktop thing on everyone is ridiculous. Just use Metro OS separately on Surface machines and invest in good solid, beautiful desktop experience that's not ugly as butt as it is now. 

So throwing keyboard-centric users under the bus (which the Start menu definitely did) is fine, yet you would dare accuse Microsoft of throwing pointing-device users under the bus - which they didn't do?

ModernUI favors no single control method - not touch, keyboards, or pointing devices.  That is unlike the Start menu - which was, in fact, designed primarily for the benefit of pointing devices.  (This is according to no less than Microsoft itself.)

You likely are not going to like my next comment - however, think about it in terms of how I framed it before you respond; you are basically arguing in favor of continued discrimination against the user classes that are not centered around pointing devices.  I'm not talking against just touch-screen users, but keyboard-centric users as well (and that definitely includes me).

 

I use Windows 8.1 (and Server 2012R2) on the same traditional desktop formfactor hardware every day of the week.  No touch support at all.  Few ModernUI apps.  How is it that I'm able to do so, where critic after critic makes the claim that such is either improbable or impossible?  The answer is both rather simple, and rather obvious - I'm not pointing-device-centric as a user.  Applications that are more easily used with a pointing device I can still use (be they desktop, ModernUI, etc.) - the reason I tend to shy away from single-control-style applications in general is because I have two hands.

 

Let's harken back to the early days of the civil-rights movement - something we all can identify with.  Do you remember the meat of the early arguments against it, and especially in the Deep South, and by PUBLIC figures such as Gov. George Wallace?  His reasoning was actually pretty darn understandable - things were stacked in favor of his base.  More non-Whites being able to get education - let alone vote - would dilute that base.  (Yes - I'm a Black male, and I actually understand the position of a segregationalist governor at that time.  Doesn't mean that I agree with the position - however, I do understand the why OF his position.)  Here the pointing-device-centric are basically in the same position that Governor Wallace was in - they have been favored and basically kissed up to for years (in the case of Windows alone, nearly two decades).  Now, the Start menu is very much excised - along with it, the bias toward pointing devices.  Civil rights has come to desktops.  (No, I'm not joking in the least - do you REALLY think that there haven't been any keyboard-centric Windows users?  Keyboard-centric users have been around - at the least - since Windows 3.x; the Start menu - first in Windows 95, then in NT4, threw us under the bus. Now, with ModernUI, there's no more kissing up to pointing devices, or their users - the seventeen-year "gravy train" just got rather messily derailed.  However, you are worrying so much about the new immigrants - the touch-centric - you forgot about all those users that you threw under that bus nearly two decades ago - the keyboard-centric users.)

 

Of what benefit is a pointing-device-centric UI or UX to keyboard-centric users?  (I can tell you exactly how much - none.)  Therefore, what in the world would ever get you thinking that those of us that got thrown under the usability bus by the Start menu would be anything other than ecstatic over its demise?

 

The position of the pointing-device-centric is as illogical today as the position of Gov. Wallace was in the 1950s and 1960s.

[insanelyapple]

Sometimes I'm wondering if this is really a community of users or one big buzz marketing site...

[Eric Veteran]

Sometimes I'm wondering if this is really a community of users or one big buzz marketing site...

What do you mean? People that use Windows shouldn't talk about it but Linux and Mac users can? It's a tech site.

[Romero]

That's mostly a consumer thing, core apps lack functionality.

If by "core apps" you mean Metro apps, I agree completely. However it's about what level of expectation one has from them, which also depends a lot on what device you're using them on. Right now like I said I don't see a compelling reason (again, on a desktop PC) to use any of them exclusively over their more full-featured traditional counterparts. On a tablet where Metro makes more sense the expectation is bound to be higher, and of course on Windows RT where there's no choice people will curse Microsoft even more for missing features. They have made the bold decision to straddle all these different form factors with a single OS having multiple UIs, and I think this affects perception as well because people are constantly comparing Metro apps to desktop apps. Naturally the former come up short but on the latter side there is no removal of functionality whatsoever.

 

It's debatable whether or not users can complain since technically they were removed from the OS and are free downloadables.

 

Is there any difference in core functionality between Win7 and 8? Are there any apps present in Win7 that have been removed from Win8 and are only available as cut down Metro versions? If not then where's the cause for complaint when it comes to out of the box functionality? Look at it this way - you can do everything on Win8 you could on Win7, plus you have these half-baked Metro apps as a "bonus". :) That said, it does make it debatable whether there's any compelling reason to move to Win8 from Win7 if you have no real use for Metro apps at all. Perhaps with Win9 as some sites have stated Microsoft will simply split the OS into separate desktop and tablet SKUs, which will be the same base OS but with different UIs emphasized. Combined with further improvements to both UIs (desktop and especially Metro which needs it much more) such a move should make the OS much more popular with users than its immediate predecessor.

[Athernar]

So throwing keyboard-centric users under the bus (which the Start menu definitely did) is fine

 

Except it didn't.

 

Keyboard users got the best feature the start menu ever had. But that doesn't fit with the agenda so let's just kick it under the carpet and pretend it isn't there.

[BajiRav]

Those are situational though.  I do transfer files, but not enough to care about improvements to the UI.  Command line copying works the same, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V work the same.

 

For multimonitor, I don't see enough difference for that to matter to me as much either.  Sure, it adds a taskbar, but it hasn't changed how I use it.

 

I am not denying there are improvements to Windows 8 or 8.1.  I am aware of them, but for the improvements I see, I also see it backsliding.  Sure, the start page is more useful than a start menu, but I never used the start menu before, so why would I use a start page now?  It just seems like unnecessary changes to me.  It alienates start menu users, and those who never used the start menu aren't going to start caring about a start page.

 

I use Windows 8.1 (and without a start menu replacement), but these are the things that cause me to pause and wonder what MS was thinking.

Needed changes and changes for the hell of it are a bit different, yeah?

Ctrl + C/Ctrl + V works the same? Sure it does but it is improved in Windows 8.

If you never use start menu (doubt it), why is start screen unnecessary change?

I kind of see what you are saying but Windows 8.x brings lots of improvements to the table which may not be huge on their own but overall it is a nice package.

Windows 7 was in the same boat. It wasn't a huge upgrade over Vista sp2 but still a nice update.

[DConnell Member]

Why try to fix something that was never broken in the first place?

 

That's a good concept, but it doesn't really apply to the Start Menu. Can you say something is broken when it never worked well in the first place?

[DConnell Member]

I thought that Microsoft going touch/tablet and desktop OS in one could work. 

 

Unfortunately I was wrong and so was Microsoft.

 

The biggest issue I have with Windows 8/8.1 is in fact the complete mix of touch and desktop paradigms in UX. 

 

Microsoft simply needs to separate the 2 and have Metro OS and Windows 9 Desktop and be done with it.

 

Allow us to customize and have a productive desktop OS and use Metro OS for tablets and other mobile devices. 

 

This whole, shove it up our noses and hope it goes through, is not working. 

 

 

I personally don't hate Windows 8.1 . I think it's faster and smoother in many aspects than any other WIndows before it.. I just think that UI is garbage, Metro is terrible on desktop and just doesn't belong there and the whole flat thing on desktop just doesn't work. 

 

 

Let's hope Window 9 is desktop only UI and Metro is separated.  I still don't understand the purpose of Sufrace Pro.. there are plenty of super slick, thin, light laptops with touchscreens that can competely replace Surface Pro for anyone who needs a full blown desktop OS with touch support. I bet you most people who use Surface Pro use it as a laptop 99% of the time. 

 

So pushing this Metro/desktop thing on everyone is ridiculous. Just use Metro OS separately on Surface machines and invest in good solid, beautiful desktop experience that's not ugly as butt as it is now. 

 

For me the second best thing about Windows 8 is the mix, so completely splitting the OS into Metro and desktop versions would be a deal breaker. Why do a complete separation of the two when improved tools to let you adjust the mix, including being able to use all of one or the other, would accomplish the same thing?

[techbeck]

I believe they will to an extent separate the two. I do believe and hope they allow the virtual elimination of Modern UI elements through GPOs, and make it easier to control store apps and connection/disconnection of MS accounts, or something along those lines. The appear to be clearly headed in that direction it's just a matter of how long it will take.

 

They need to.  They sure did back peddle a lot on the XB1 so I guess I wouldnt be surprised if they did something.  Just figured something more would of happened by now.  8.1 was a big improvement but more is needed.  Hopefully they will announce more info soon.

[MorganX]

Is there any difference in core functionality between Win7 and 8? Are there any apps present in Win7 that have been removed from Win8 and are only available as cut down Metro versions? If not then where's the cause for complaint when it comes to out of the box functionality? Look at it this way - you can do everything on Win8 you could on Win7, plus you have these half-baked Metro apps as a "bonus". :) That said, it does make it debatable whether there's any compelling reason to move to Win8 from Win7 if you have no real use for Metro apps at all. Perhaps with Win9 as some sites have stated Microsoft will simply split the OS into separate desktop and tablet SKUs, which will be the same base OS but with different UIs emphasized. Combined with further improvements to both UIs (desktop and especially Metro which needs it much more) such a move should make the OS much more popular with users than its immediate predecessor.

 

You "almost" lost me but reeled me back in with that sentence :D. That's really the issue for many I think. If you have to go back to Win32 counterparts or workarounds, why upgrade at all. And having those legacy apps when MS came out with the charge, move forward, change, give it a try, only to be let down by the apps, exacerbated the disappointment. I think MS is conceding this with some of it's backtracking if you will, and working real hard to make the desktop UX more seamless with Modern UI. It's just going to take a lot longer than anyone anticipated or would like I think.

[MorganX]

They need to.  They sure did back peddle a lot on the XB1 so I guess I wouldnt be surprised if they did something.  Just figured something more would of happened by now.  8.1 was a big improvement but more is needed.  Hopefully they will announce more info soon.

 

Agreed. I think what everyone is asking for is just harder than anyone thinks or even Microsoft anticipated. Remember, they can break store apps, but they can't break backwards compatibility. I know their devs are smart people, it has to be a difficult task. But I have to add, they put themselves in this position, not consumers.

[adrynalyne]

Ctrl + C/Ctrl + V works the same? Sure it does but it is improved in Windows 8.

If you never use start menu (doubt it), why is start screen unnecessary change?

I kind of see what you are saying but Windows 8.x brings lots of improvements to the table which may not be huge on their own but overall it is a nice package.

Windows 7 was in the same boat. It wasn't a huge upgrade over Vista sp2 but still a nice update.

 

 

They work exactly the same for what I use them for, so improvement is subjective to user needs.

 

"If you never use start menu (doubt it), why is start screen unnecessary change?"

 

 

You can certainly doubt it if you like, but it is true.  As for not seeing why I think a start screen is an unnecessary change, maybe it is because MS thought it a good idea to make it the main UI?  Sure, this can be changed in 8.1, but its kinda like the whole gadget bar in Windows 7 and Vista:  unused and worthless to me.  Trying to make that your main UI doesn't make sense to me either.  I could turn off the gadget bar though....

 

I have no doubt that Microsoft will find a common ground and refine it enough to make sense, but right now it is just cumbersome and annoying.

[PGHammer]

Except it didn't.

 

Keyboard users got the best feature the start menu ever had. But that doesn't fit with the agenda so let's just kick it under the carpet and pretend it isn't there.

For pointing-device-centered users, the lack of bias is very much the agenda - that is the entire gist behind their arguments. I am simply explaining why those arguments cut no ice with me, despite my having absolutely no touch support on my hardware.  They have been insisting and insisting - repeatedly - that touch support is why the pointing-device-centered got thrown under the bus - even though not only do keyboard-driven users benefit at least as much, they benefit MORE than touch-screen users for two reasons - we have been around longer, especially in terms of Windows usage, and we don't require any additional hardware.

 

Neutrality is simply that - there is NO favoritism shown whatever.  What bias there is (in any direction) is in individual applications - not the UI itself.  No reverse-discrimination (not even in terms of touch-screen users, let alone keyboard-centric users)  It would be as if the Civil Rights Act had said, rather simply "There shall be no discrimination based on race - by anyone.  Do that and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."  THAT is a civil-rights law I could support.  (The CRA in hte US of today has so many subsections and all too many examples of selective enforcement that it has become a rather sad joke; worse, it is further undone by selective enforcement of the main sections OF the law.  Discrimination BY minorities - anywhere - is just as reprehensible as discrimination against minorities - and from what I had been taught in school, it's just as illegal.  However, how often is it prosecuted?)

 

The bias in favor of pointing devices has been there (in terms of the Start menu) - since Windows 95.  I never said OR implied that getting rid of it was going to be painless.  (It certainly wasn't painless ending racial discrimination in the United States - not even outside the South.)  However, as much as nobody believed that the decision would be made by the passage of time, the decision in terms of UI/UX support will largely be done by sales of hardware - as much as they may hate the idea, is the insistence on retention of the pointing-device bias of up to Windows 7 even winnable? Lastly, if - by some miracle - that argument is actually won BY the insisters on that rollback, will that basically doom Windows to irrelevance?  (Winning the battle, but losing the war as a result.)  Governor "Segregation now, segregation forever!" got a clue - he got elected to his last term as governor of Alabama by winning the majority of Alabama's Black vote.  Could banishing the bias in favor of pointing devices be a "teachable moment" in terms of Windows itself?

[capr]

if it ain't broken, don't fix it is my policy and it's the reason I won't switch until windows 7 breaks on me. 

[Athernar]

For pointing-device-centered users, the lack of bias is very much the agenda - that is the entire gist behind their arguments. I am simply explaining why those arguments cut no ice with me, despite my having absolutely no touch support on my hardware.  They have been insisting and insisting - repeatedly - that touch support is why the pointing-device-centered got thrown under the bus - even though not only do keyboard-driven users benefit at least as much, they benefit MORE than touch-screen users for two reasons - we have been around longer, especially in terms of Windows usage, and we don't require any additional hardware.

 

Neutrality is simply that - there is NO favoritism shown whatever.  What bias there is (in any direction) is in individual applications - not the UI itself.  No reverse-discrimination (not even in terms of touch-screen users, let alone keyboard-centric users)  It would be as if the Civil Rights Act had said, rather simply "There shall be no discrimination based on race - by anyone.  Do that and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."  THAT is a civil-rights law I could support.  (The CRA in hte US of today has so many subsections and all too many examples of selective enforcement that it has become a rather sad joke; worse, it is further undone by selective enforcement of the main sections OF the law.  Discrimination BY minorities - anywhere - is just as reprehensible as discrimination against minorities - and from what I had been taught in school, it's just as illegal.  However, how often is it prosecuted?)

 

The bias in favor of pointing devices has been there (in terms of the Start menu) - since Windows 95.  I never said OR implied that getting rid of it was going to be painless.  (It certainly wasn't painless ending racial discrimination in the United States - not even outside the South.)  However, as much as nobody believed that the decision would be made by the passage of time, the decision in terms of UI/UX support will largely be done by sales of hardware - as much as they may hate the idea, is the insistence on retention of the pointing-device bias of up to Windows 7 even winnable? Lastly, if - by some miracle - that argument is actually won BY the insisters on that rollback, will that basically doom Windows to irrelevance?  (Winning the battle, but losing the war as a result.)  Governor "Segregation now, segregation forever!" got a clue - he got elected to his last term as governor of Alabama by winning the majority of Alabama's Black vote.  Could banishing the bias in favor of pointing devices be a "teachable moment" in terms of Windows itself?

 

Now, instead of rambling on about Civil Rights and Alabama, which have absolutely zero justification for being mentioned here - you stop being evasive and get to addressing the point?

 

Vista introduced the best feature the start menu ever had - the hybrid search box / launcher functionality. A feature which is dependant on - shock horror, the keyboard.

 

Care to comment?

[zhangm Supervisor]

Vista introduced the best feature the start menu ever had - the hybrid search box / launcher functionality. A feature which is dependant on - shock horror, the keyboard.

Some people thought it was the best thing ever. Some people thought it was the worst thing ever. Some people still just turn off indexing and refuse to search. Such is how things go.

[Athernar]

Some people thought it was the best thing ever. Some people thought it was the worst thing ever. Some people still just turn off indexing and refuse to search. Such is how things go.

 

The beauty of choice.

[blerk]

I hope 8.2 gives more options to go through upon first use of an user account.

 

I like the new Start Menu, but I don't want to use it all the time. I don't like the charms bar nor the hiding of aero peek. Skydrive is nice but I don't like the default options. Let me configure these sorts of options upon first use instead of irritating me by making me dance through countless settings menus to get everything "just right". 

 

Once I a) figured out that I could change those settings (amongst others), and b) waded through various menus to alter those options, now I'm happy.

[insanelyapple]

What do you mean? People that use Windows shouldn't talk about it but Linux and Mac users can? It's a tech site.

Did I said that they can't? Don't put words under my fingers please. I'm here for a bit and from month to month I'm getting more and more convinced that some people here are actually hired by Microsoft to boost its image, bash anyone who has different opinion, spread marketing word because such amount of uncritical content that they're producing, mindless praising all products can't be written by regular person.

As for 5 reasons - each point can be called into question, but I will not cause yet another pointless discussion with mentioned above guys. I'm skipping 8 and 8.1 and I'll wait for any news about 9 and combined UI, because forced touch interface on desktop computers, without any way to disable it is just a one big laugh.

[DConnell Member]

You can certainly doubt it if you like, but it is true.  As for not seeing why I think a start screen is an unnecessary change, maybe it is because MS thought it a good idea to make it the main UI?  Sure, this can be changed in 8.1, but its kinda like the whole gadget bar in Windows 7 and Vista:  unused and worthless to me.  Trying to make that your main UI doesn't make sense to me either.  I could turn off the gadget bar though....

 

I have no doubt that Microsoft will find a common ground and refine it enough to make sense, but right now it is just cumbersome and annoying.

 

The way you feel about the Screen is how I felt about the Start Menu since 1995 - worthless, cumbersome and annoying. And the only real fix that was ever given for it was the addition of the search box, making it easy to avoid using the menu itself.

 

To me the Start Screen was an extremely necessary change. A new UI was needed as far back as Windows 98,really. It's a crime that it took Microsoft this long to give something else a try.