IDC: Windows 8 users want Start menu and booting to desktop

It's been over four months since Microsoft launched Windows 8, and the evidence is growing that the newest version of the company's operating system is not gaining as many users as previous Windows versions. So what can Microsoft do to solve that problem?

Bob O'Donnell, an analyst for research firm IDC, says the firm's research has shown two things about people who have used Windows 8. One is they miss the Start menu in desktop mode, something which we have pointed out in the past. The other thing they miss is the ability to boot Windows 8 in desktop mode, bypassing the touchscreen oriented Start screen.

CNET quotes O'Donnell as saying:

Those two things have come up consistently. We've done some research and people miss that. And there are a lot of people that as soon as they boot into Windows 8, they go to desktop mode and do most their work there and occasionally back to Metro. But the point being they're much more comfortable with desktop mode.

So will Microsoft make changes to Windows 8 to make these users happy? It's doubtful that the company will add a Start menu screen back to the desktop, bit O'Donnell seems to hint that Microsoft could be pressured by PC OEMs to allow Windows 8 to boot into desktop mode. He states, "Certainly if you talk to PC vendors, they'd like to see Microsoft do that. Because they recognize some of the challenges that consumers are facing."

Source: CNET | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to open new cybercrime center in Redmond

Next Story

After 6 months, Apple finally patches App Store vulnerability

242 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Because is too damn hard to click the "Desktop" tile. It demands a lot of knowledge, power, strenght, stamina, luck, and maybe some divine help.

Really, I tried to believe people were not that dumb... I was wrong..

You don't watch a lot of Youtube videos, do you?? ;-P

Filipe Ribeiro said,

Really, I tried to believe people were not that dumb... I was wrong..

Seriously?

I always get my fingers in a twist when watching video, while typing Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 64-bit in the start menu........

You must be a wicked 10-finger typist.

And I don't know why the start screen has to be full screen, but myself find it pretty handy with all the grouping options and such.

It's hard to please all, what is a horror to one, is the other ones joy....

Dutchie64 said,
Seriously?

I always get my fingers in a twist when watching video, while typing Autodesk 3ds Max Design 2012 64-bit in the start menu........

You must be a wicked 10-finger typist.

And I don't know why the start screen has to be full screen, but myself find it pretty handy with all the grouping options and such.

It's hard to please all, what is a horror to one, is the other ones joy....

Again you're misrepresenting the steps that are required to launch programs this way. There is just about never a need to type in the full name of a program. Most programs come up in just a few characters. Typing 4-5 characters while watching a video is fairly trivial for anyone who can touch-type.

You don't know why the start screen has to be full screen because it doesn't. On desktop it's nothing more than a side-effect of an interface designed for touch screens.

Don't get me wrong I'm not one of those people that's against the start screen. Quite the opposite I actually like it. I just think it's not as good (efficient) as the start menu is on the desktop. Which is what I'm looking for in an OS. It should make whatever I'm doing faster and easier, I shouldn't have to overcome its "features" to get stuff done.

Certainly people will have different preferences. With so many different users wouldn't it then be prudent for Microsoft to offer customers a choice rather than trying to force everyone to work the same way?

I was just trying to get a point across as it is extremeley hard to watch something while doing something else.
We can discuss the pros and cons of the new start menu for a long time, but it's not going away. Like with Win95, people finally will adjust.

Choice? In my years as a sys admin, I saw all this choiuce makes it extremely hard for a lot of people to work with computers. There's a reasons why Apple is so popular with less technical users: Simplicity.....
Yes, taking away a little of these choices will affect the 'poweruser', but honestly.... How many do you know who actually use all the shortcuts, tricks and workarounds Windows has to offer? Exactly, not that many.

Does W8 has it's flaws? Oh yes, no doubt about it. But as the new start menu in W95, this will grow and expand.

And starting a program by pressing the start button on the keyboard and typing the name is still the same, only difference now is that the Metro/start screen pops up for a couple of seconds. If you're starting a desktop app you'll end up there again anyway.
And that video, just rewind a couple of seconds, or pause as that flashscreen of the app you're starting is in the way anyway ;-)

IgorP said,

Again you're misrepresenting the steps that are required to launch programs this way. There is just about never a need to type in the full name of a program. Most programs come up in just a few characters. Typing 4-5 characters while watching a video is fairly trivial for anyone who can touch-type.

You don't know why the start screen has to be full screen because it doesn't. On desktop it's nothing more than a side-effect of an interface designed for touch screens.

Don't get me wrong I'm not one of those people that's against the start screen. Quite the opposite I actually like it. I just think it's not as good (efficient) as the start menu is on the desktop. Which is what I'm looking for in an OS. It should make whatever I'm doing faster and easier, I shouldn't have to overcome its "features" to get stuff done.

Certainly people will have different preferences. With so many different users wouldn't it then be prudent for Microsoft to offer customers a choice rather than trying to force everyone to work the same way?

This is all true but it's also exactly the reason that Mac ISN'T popular with me.

Of course there are ways to work around the start screen. In fact I'm quite happy installing a 3rd party start menu for the time being. My hope is that Microsoft will take notice of the way "power users" use Windows as well as the "less technical users". It does me no good if Windows is simplified to the point of creating a series of hurdles I have to jump to use it the way I want to.

In the end for me it comes down to this.

- Change that results in improved efficiency. GOOD
- Change for the sake of change. ANNOYING BUT TOLERABLE
- Change that results in decreased efficiency. BAD

So far the start screen is all 2 & 3 for my workflow.

Also on the subject of choices. While it's certainly true that more choices increase complexity for the end user. The case is somewhat different to the norm for Windows 8, which currently suffers from a harsh disconnect between metro and the desktop. It really feels like having 2 separate operating systems in one. You have a separate set of programs, a separate set of settings, even a completely separate task switcher and then you use metro as the main launcher for desktop programs. It's strange at best, especially on kb/mouse systems as opposed to touch based systems.

Maybe more choice isn't the answer but a new interface that works for everyone, or that is at least better at detecting the user's context.

In summary, I don't disagree with the points you made, I just want MORE.

Impressive nonsense....

If you're watching a video, how in the hell can you open up the start menu, select the proper folder, go in there and select the proper shortcut? Multitasking is an overused term...

Dutchie64 said,
Impressive nonsense....

If you're watching a video, how in the hell can you open up the start menu, select the proper folder, go in there and select the proper shortcut? Multitasking is an overused term...

Your question is entirely loaded. I can start a program without taking the steps you mentioned. I can hit the windows key, start typing the name of the app and hit enter all without taking my eyes off the video. Alternatively the program could be pinned to the start menu which would also require less steps.

Even if I went through all of your steps it's entirely possible to still follow the video. Using the Start Screen this is impossible.

Here is the really important question, why is it beneficial or even necessary for the start screen to cover the entire screen?

Nah, not good enough. I watch videos all the time. If you are clicking the start menu looking for a program, your eyes aren't watching the video. You are listening to it which you still can with the start screen. I don't live in the start screen. So I may not be using it as intended, I just use it for an app launcher so I am never in it for more than 3 seconds at a time.

Users wanted Program Manager too. This is getting old. If you have to LEARN how to navigate the Modern UI (metro) then stop using a computer. Get an abacus, paper and pencil. First off, it is human nature to not like change. Like anything different though, give it an honest 2-4 weeks. So, after I forced myself to stuck with the Modern UI for 4 weeks, I can't find anything the start menu does faster or better than the start screen. It is different yes, you may have to use learn shortcut keys to make it fly, but it is truly a step forward. Even on desktops. -- That said, full screen apps on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor is awful. Hopefully that will change

EmbraceNext said,
Users wanted Program Manager too. This is getting old. If you have to LEARN how to navigate the Modern UI (metro) then stop using a computer. Get an abacus, paper and pencil. First off, it is human nature to not like change. Like anything different though, give it an honest 2-4 weeks. So, after I forced myself to stuck with the Modern UI for 4 weeks, I can't find anything the start menu does faster or better than the start screen. It is different yes, you may have to use learn shortcut keys to make it fly, but it is truly a step forward. Even on desktops. -- That said, full screen apps on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor is awful. Hopefully that will change

Ok here's one thing the Start Menu can do that the Start Screen can't. With the Start Menu I can watch a video in a window while I load up a program. The Start Screen on the other hand takes over the whole screen so I can't do anything else.

How about this, what is the benefit of the Start Screen over the Start Menu on a non-touch system?

I used to feel the same way about Windows 8, I refused to use it without a start menu. A collegue asked me why I hated Metro so much. After thinking about it, I established that it was due to me not wanting to be bothered learning how to navigate a new UI. After sitting down with Metro for a while, I really started getting to grips with it. I started to love how everything almost 'flows', and now quite honestly I won't miss the start menu.

Biggest flaw in the W8 release is the crappy 'tutorial' MS shipped with it.

HP and Dell did a wonderfull job on this (one is in the Store for free) and this would have made a huge difference.
Or at least a tile that states "Don't Panic" and redirects you to a dedicated part of the MS websites with a ton of little and bigger video tutorials.

It would have greatly reduced the confusion and anger fits on the changed UI.
I'm still confused as of why this isn't picked up by MS yet in any way or form......

my 2 cents on this.

HighwayGlider said
Just use Windows 7... This crap answer is getting old and no one will take you seriously.
If you love Windows 7, then yes, use it. It's a great OS. But.. If I you want something that's better, then go with Windows 8..

I think its weird that the majority of posts on articles such as these are from the same people who hate Windows 8.

I feel like the majority of the people that do like Windows 8 dont bother posting. There's no point, its' a waste of time.

So this makes it seem like everyone hates Windows 8... when in reality it's just a small loud group.

I love Windows 8. I've installed it on 3 of my clients' computers and they all love it. Once you teach them how to use it (which took about half an hour), they can't stop using it.

Confuser said,
And Windows 9 will have another feature... no more desktop, all metro apps

You think so?
Then MS will soon be gone from the surface

Confuser said,
And Windows 9 will have another feature... no more desktop, all metro apps

I do not think so, I also hope it will not.
It would be Windows Götterdämmerung.....

I wonder if the users who think the Metro interface is cool also moonlight as models for those ghastly photos and videos plastered all over the Microsoft site?

BavonWW said
I wonder if the users who think the Metro interface is cool also moonlight as models for those ghastly photos and videos plastered all over the Microsoft site?
I love the M̶e̶t̶r̶o̶ Modern UI for several reasons, but I don't remember myself being on the Microsoft website..

Although there are some nuisances in Windows 8, not once has the "no start button" EVER bothered me in the slightest, other than the first few days getting used to the new system.

As far as I am concerned, I have yet to read a legitimate reason why someone needs the start button.

PS: That isn't to say Windows 8 doesn't have faults elsewhere.

djpailo said,
Although there are some nuisances in Windows 8, not once has the "no start button" EVER bothered me in the slightest, other than the first few days getting used to the new system.

As far as I am concerned, I have yet to read a legitimate reason why someone needs the start button.

PS: That isn't to say Windows 8 doesn't have faults elsewhere.

The start button or the start menu? The start button is obviously just a visually cue and it could be argued that it is no longer needed as people have already learned or will quickly learn to move the mouse to the bottom left corner or press the windows key. The start menu however is another matter and there are many ways in which the start screen is a lesser alternative.

djpailo said,
As far as I am concerned, I have yet to read a legitimate reason why someone needs the start button.

As far as I am concerned, I have yet to read a legitimate reason why someone needs the start screen.

StrykerMikado said,
Adding those two things will allow me to switch to windows 8.

Why switch at all? If you had any reason to switch you wouldn't be held back by something as trivial as installing one of the many 3rd party start menu replacements.

It's either good enough to switch to or it isn't. I don't understand how having to install one program to work the way you want changes this.

StrykerMikado said
Adding those two things will allow me to switch to windows 8.
Or you could just take ten minutes of your time and learn how to use the Start Screen..

Microsoft know that they mead a BIG mess, that thing does not sell, does not sell means the shareholders are not happy, the shareholders are not happy then Balmer needs more Prozac, Balmer on more Prozac means the Windows will change again 100 present guaranteed, just no one knows how this time

The next release of Windows is 100% different for sure, just waiting to see how different it is this time

The bottom line in every argument is that the Metro Start screen should have been an OPTION, and not the default choice at that. We, THE WORLDWIDE USERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM, should have been able to choose for ourselves, not have it forced on us. If it was made optional from the start, NONE of this drama would be going on, and Windows 8 would have gotten stellar reviews from everyone but the most severe critics. The current implementation is just an asinine decision by MS, who IGNORED the overwhelming feedback they got from the DP, CP, and now RTM users, and I bet that it will be reversed sometime in the future so that users will be able to choose what interface they want.

RottGutt said,
The bottom line in every argument is that the Metro Start screen should have been an OPTION, and not the default choice at that. We, THE WORLDWIDE USERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM, should have been able to choose for ourselves, not have it forced on us. If it was made optional from the start, NONE of this drama would be going on, and Windows 8 would have gotten stellar reviews from everyone but the most severe critics. The current implementation is just an asinine decision by MS, who IGNORED the overwhelming feedback they got from the DP, CP, and now RTM users, and I bet that it will be reversed sometime in the future so that users will be able to choose what interface they want.

I actually think the way forward has to be a new interface. I don't think MS can afford to backtrack now. It would create too much bad press, even more than they are seeing already. Also lets face it, the start menu had many faults. It was certainly in need of a revamp, just not the way they did it.

Maybe they'll meet us somewhere in the middle. Make a smoother more integrated experience between metro and the desktop. That is make them work together rather than fighting each other like they do now. Also a new app launcher for desktop, not as bloated as the start menu maybe but possibly something similar to Apple's spotlight. Just so it doesn't kick you out of the desktop all the time.

I'm just hoping they come up with something great to unify the whole thing because metro as a touch interface is actually quite good and I actually think having a single OS for touch and kb/mouse is a good move. It just needs to stop forcing the wrong UI on you for the wrong use case.

RottGutt said
The bottom line in every argument is that the Metro Start screen should have been an OPTION, and not the default choice at that.
It's not so much about Microsoft removing the Start Menu and replacing it with the Start Screen. It's more about people's expectations in today's world. Instead of appreciating what we've got, a lot of us tend to just shun it away just because it doesn't do, look or function 100% the way we want it to. With that being said, the OS has plenty of new features and other improvements, but just because of the Start Screen, people won't upgrade..

Does it really make sense not to upgrade just because of one thing, even though there are plenty of good reasons to upgrade..

Windows 95 had 3 major changes to the UI: The Taskbar, Windows Explorer, and the Start Menu. People lived and moved on, so why is there such a fuss now?

For me, I think it all comes down to the users' expectations.

dtourond said,
It's not so much about Microsoft removing the Start Menu and replacing it with the Start Screen. It's more about people's expectations in today's world. Instead of appreciating what we've got, a lot of us tend to just shun it away just because it doesn't do, look or function 100% the way we want it to.

I don't think it's that at all. When I spend money on a product I don't feel I have to "appreciate what I have". The product SHOULD work the way I want or I will spend my money on one that does. That's the whole idea isn't it?

Windows is used by many different people with different skills and for different purposes. I'm sure Microsoft knows this. The Start Screen works in some situations but for many cases it brings no benefit from the Start Menu and has it's own set of drawbacks too. I don't think it's good enough to dismiss people by saying they are "afraid of change" or have "high expectations" or these sorts of things. Change for the sake of change is NOT helpful. Changes should come with an appreciable increase in efficiency and productivity.

dtourond said,
With that being said, the OS has plenty of new features and other improvements, but just because of the Start Screen, people won't upgrade..

Does it really make sense not to upgrade just because of one thing, even though there are plenty of good reasons to upgrade..

This I 100% agree with. Which is why I have Windows 8 installed with a 3rd party start menu. For me it's the best of both worlds and I'm ok with it. I still think it's important to voice why the Start Screen is NOT a good solution for the way I work because maybe someone will read it and we'll get some improvements that work for everybody in future versions of Windows.

IgorP said
I don't think it's that at all. When I spend money on a product I don't feel I have to "appreciate what I have". The product SHOULD work the way I want or I will spend my money on one that does. That's the whole idea isn't it?
I saw this video on iClarified (an Apple news site), and Bill Mahr was talking about how people today are never happy with what they've got, and unless the product exceeds their expectations they're not happy. It's a really good clip. It's about Apple but I find this is happening all over the industry.

http://www.iclarified.com/2807...g-is-ever-good-enough-video

dtourond said,
I saw this video on iClarified (an Apple news site), and Bill Mahr was talking about how people today are never happy with what they've got, and unless the product exceeds their expectations they're not happy. It's a really good clip. It's about Apple but I find this is happening all over the industry.

http://www.iclarified.com/2807...g-is-ever-good-enough-video

It wasn't so much about products as it was about finance but I take your point. The question is, is it really PEOPLE who aren't happy or is it just the typical tech journalists making a storm in a tea cup?

When the iPhone 5 came out all the tech news stories were about how lacklustre it was and it still went on to sell millions of units.

Of course the other element with Apple is that they created the expection that their products would exceed expectations. They wanted that sort of hype, that's why they announce their products with glitzy media events and use words like "magical".

IgorP said
The question is, is it really PEOPLE who aren't happy or is it just the typical tech journalists making a storm in a tea cup?
Well I think that people's expectations are getting higher today and if the products (whatever it may be) doesn't match the expectation, then they bad mouth it and/or the company that made it. I've seen some people do that on the internet, and in real life.

But that's just me

Easy way around this (which means MS won't do it), during installation, if windows detects a TOUCH screen interface, install the win8 desktop. If it does not, default to the win7 traditional
interface.

We humans are terribly incoherent people. For years we've been saying: MS, you need to do something, innovate, create new stuff or you'll slowly and progressively disappear. Then, MS does exactly what we asked for, and we hammer them for not keeping everything exactly the same.

We're an awful, awful species.

Xabier Granja said,
We humans are terribly incoherent people. For years we've been saying: MS, you need to do something, innovate, create new stuff or you'll slowly and progressively disappear. Then, MS does exactly what we asked for, and we hammer them for not keeping everything exactly the same.

We're an awful, awful species.

The problem is not with changing things but changing them wit something better......
Simple as that...

Yes, innovate, like hey, this ice-cream tastes good, make it tastes better, like add strawberries and chocolate, but Microsoft nooo, they added vinegar, lemon and three table spoons of salt

Microsoft: you asked us to use our imagination.
Customers: we are sooooo soooooorry to ask you that, please never ever use your imagination again

Xabier Granja said,
We humans are terribly incoherent people. For years we've been saying: MS, you need to do something, innovate, create new stuff or you'll slowly and progressively disappear. Then, MS does exactly what we asked for, and we hammer them for not keeping everything exactly the same.

We're an awful, awful species.

Metro is an innovation? I am eager to read more.....................

Let's face it, Microsoft was hoping people would be buying tablets and touch enabled devices in droves instead of iPads but that reality ain't quite happening. People want iPads, people need Windows PC's to do work. Yeah there is this consumer segment that doesn't need a PC for work but they sure ain't gonna capture it with a confusing $599 device or a bulkier, heavier and nearly twice as expensive $999 (even though they can run x86 apps; they don't care)...

It's been 4 months and something, and again with the same thing. The start menu was replaced with the start screen. I have a non touch screen notebook and I work with Windows 8 just right. An extra click won't kill. Besides that I can see my received mails , Facebook news, the weather, etc.

I has been my experience, when I was doing customer support (phone and in home), that most "normal" users use desktop icons to launch programs. They never use the start menu. They don't even know what it is. I think that's why MS has done away with it.

Now, I have all the programs I use on a normal basis to the desktop taskbar. I very seldom have to go into start or all apps at all. Doing it this way, make one more productive since you don't have to go through the layers of the start menu. Seriously, adapt a bit, with an open mind, and you will see the advantages. And if you are unable to adapt, use one of the start menu apps out there.

hagjohn said,
I has been my experience, when I was doing customer support (phone and in home), that most "normal" users use desktop icons to launch programs. They never use the start menu. They don't even know what it is. I think that's why MS has done away with it.

Now, I have all the programs I use on a normal basis to the desktop taskbar. I very seldom have to go into start or all apps at all. Doing it this way, make one more productive since you don't have to go through the layers of the start menu. Seriously, adapt a bit, with an open mind, and you will see the advantages. And if you are unable to adapt, use one of the start menu apps out there.

I hate when people suggest taskbar pinning as an alternative to the start menu. If I wanted to turn my taskbar into OS X's dock I would just skip the middleman and buy myself a Mac.

I have 3 things pinned to my taskbar because I use them constantly. I don't want more there because I actually use my taskbar to manage windows. This is quite surprising to many apparently despite the fact that this is what it was designed for in the first place. I've also switched the taskbar to show the full titles of each window rather than grouping everything under a single icon like it does by default now. This allows me to quickly and efficiently manage many windows all at once, which keeps me productive.

I also want to have quick access to programs that I use often but not as often as the pinned programs and I want to access them without being taken out of my current workspace/context.

I don't think it's good enough to design an OS just for the "normal" user. If Microsoft wants Windows to be a productivity tool then it needs to keep it productive, not create change for the sake of change or to force a new business model that is the latest fad in the "consumer" space. These fads come and go but work still has to get done.

IgorP said,

I hate when people suggest taskbar pinning as an alternative to the start menu. If I wanted to turn my taskbar into OS X's dock I would just skip the middleman and buy myself a Mac.

I have 3 things pinned to my taskbar because I use them constantly. I don't want more there because I actually use my taskbar to manage windows. This is quite surprising to many apparently despite the fact that this is what it was designed for in the first place. I've also switched the taskbar to show the full titles of each window rather than grouping everything under a single icon like it does by default now. This allows me to quickly and efficiently manage many windows all at once, which keeps me productive.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...s-8-users-to-use-windows-8/

Windows 8 is the biggest garbage Microsoft ever produced, Vista was just dwarfed by Windows 8, yes it has an improvement almost everywhere, and yes it is uglier just everywhere.

Balmer punished the consumer and took the UI they loved, and the consumer punished Balmer and did not give him the money he loves so much!

The Windows 8 UI is good for executives on Prozac, you can go out on a sunny day, play golf, go back to the office, have a meeting or two, look at the Windows 8 UI for a bit, and go out again.

For the rest of us Office Cubicle Slaves, the only thing we say all day is that ugly Windows 8 UI.

"So will Microsoft make changes to Windows 8 to make these users happy?"
No. They will continue to be thickheaded in not responding to feedback on these two issues, just have they been since the previews.

I don't miss it and I don't miss booting to desktop. When I get my leap motion pre-order, it will be even better.

Didn't Microsoft say way back around the Longhorn era that the age of the Start Menu was coming to an end....

The other thing is, the new "superbar" in Windows 7 paved the way for removing the start menu, its very customizable and at least for me I can pin all my apps to it. Having the Sidebar, the All Programs Menu, and the Superbar is a bit redundant. My side bar was often empty because I saw no point in having my apps pinned there and the superbar.

Now this isn't to say that Microsoft should have gotten rid of the Start Menu completely, they could have easily kept the button there to launch back to the Start Screen or have it open a small menu that has the search, shut down, control panel etc.

The other problem Microsoft faces is the Start Screen, desktop apps and Metro apps offer a completely different interface. The general response I have heard is that people think if they launch lets say Microsoft Office in Metro they will get a Metro style office, but are instead jerked back to the desktop Aero interface. I know Microsoft wants us to get used to the new Metro, but it doesn't blend well, but it can with some tweaks

wv@gt said,
Didn't Microsoft say way back around the Longhorn era that the age of the Start Menu was coming to an end....

Well they also once claimed that Longhorn would be built on top of .NET. We all know how that worked out...

By "Sidebar" you mean the ability to pin programs to the Start Menu right? If you do, than I'd agree that that was rendered semi-useless with Windows 7 (it was a nice feature in Vista though).

The funny thing is that when I first saw a video of an early Windows 8 build, I thought: That is the greatest Windows ever.

In this demo presented to an Audience, Windows 8 had a start menu, and there was also the start screen. Microsoft for whatever reason decided to remove this feature, and now other companies are releasing products that provides this functionality.

It was a business decision and a smart one at that. They need developers to build for the app store in order to ensure future success in a world that's increasingly all about app stores. That wouldn't happen if all they really did was build the start screen on top of a glorified Windows 7. In the next five years tens of millions of people will upgrade to windows 8 (or 9) and demand apps from websites to run and the Windows Store will be on of the largest out there out of necessity. At that point maybe they'll add the start menu back in, but I doubt it.

spenser.d said,
It was a business decision and a smart one at that. They need developers to build for the app store in order to ensure future success in a world that's increasingly all about app stores. That wouldn't happen if all they really did was build the start screen on top of a glorified Windows 7. In the next five years tens of millions of people will upgrade to windows 8 (or 9) and demand apps from websites to run and the Windows Store will be on of the largest out there out of necessity. At that point maybe they'll add the start menu back in, but I doubt it.

Whether it was a smart decision or not, only time will tell. It is too early to tell and so far any such claim is subjective.

One thing that Balmer said about Windows 8 before its release was dead right: It will be the riskiest version of Windows yet.

I wasn't use start Burton anymore on Windows 7... Only on a few occasions ans start screen do it as well.
IDC are stupid to focus on this popular wrong problem. This is just an anti-Windows campaign and IDC just relays it but it's not the real reasons of possibly factually not as fast as previous Windows 8 adoption. These reasons are certainly out of Microsoft : changing market, mobile market rising with smartphone and tablet, oem partners defeating with poor devices offering...

MFH said,

So that has what to do with the Start Menu/Screen? Ah I see, nothing...

It has more to do with poor coding practices than anything. Since Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Initiative, I have seen less and less "Rotted" machines.

Action plan for MS:
1. Reward the Win8 under-the-hood software devs. Great job, performance is better than Win7.
2. Sinofsky is gone. Clear out the other UI people, who are so fanatical about the UI that they just won't listen. They didn't during the dev and consumer previews and they still don't. Do you want a product that people want to buy, or do you want to upset a big chunk of your market for no good reason?
3. Hire/buy Stardock, who seem to understand what people want in a UI, without undermining the under-the-hood work done so far.
4. Don't put your faith in metrics.
- a. if the metrics told you that nobody used the start button, they were Wrong. Obviously.
- b. if the metrics told you that people only used full-screen (even though most every app opens windowed by default) they were Wrong. Obviously.
5. Remember that your product is called “Windows”. Not “Screen”. And that full-screen only is not “modern”. It's what we had in Dos days. Not metro but retro.
6. Why not make the Start screen windowed on the desktop? And make Metro apps run windowed?
7. Folders for related apps on the start screen.
HTH. Good luck with Windows Blue!

MS isn't really interested in "what users want"... They just want to keep one design type so time is saved by not having to develop new code for each platform. It isn't an entirely stupid idea. The problem is that the UI methods for portable systems and PCs are just too different.

The greatest irony is that most of the people who were crying about MS not coming up with innovations on the UI are now clamoring for the old UI back.

They want to try and shift users into Metro/Modern so that they'll use the Windows Store. I suspect the reason there isn't a start menu option built-in, is simply that they want customers to return to the Start screen, and thus to think about Metro, even if using the desktop so that they can try and wean them off it and get them spending money in the Windows Store.

singularity87 said,
They want to try and shift users into Metro/Modern so that they'll use the Windows Store. I suspect the reason there isn't a start menu option built-in, is simply that they want customers to return to the Start screen, and thus to think about Metro, even if using the desktop so that they can try and wean them off it and get them spending money in the Windows Store.

There's no Start Menu option, simply because it's an outdated launcher. Even in Windows 7, it's not needed.

Dot Matrix said,

There's no Start Menu option, simply because it's an outdated launcher. Even in Windows 7, it's not needed.

In your opinion

Dot Matrix said,

There's no Start Menu option, simply because it's an outdated launcher. Even in Windows 7, it's not needed.

In what way "outdated" if it worked well for users? At least it organized into tidy folders.
And even if not strictly 'needed', it still made a better product for a substantial part of your market, who don't want a phone-based UI metaphor on a large desktop.
It seems to me that if your metro team (hypothetically) swapped jobs with the Stardock team, then Stardock would have gone bankrupt, while MS gathered plaudits rather than the present barrage of well-reasoned criticism. Why don't your UI people Listen?

gb8080 said,

In what way "outdated" if it worked well for users? At least it organized into tidy folders.
And even if not strictly 'needed', it still made a better product for a substantial part of your market, who don't want a phone-based UI metaphor on a large desktop.
It seems to me that if your metro team (hypothetically) swapped jobs with the Stardock team, then Stardock would have gone bankrupt, while MS gathered plaudits rather than the present barrage of well-reasoned criticism. Why don't your UI people Listen?

Metro isn't a "phone based UI" - do you even remember where it first came from? (Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Media_Center_Edition)

Second, the Start Menu was rendered largely outdated by the Search and pinning features of Windows 7. You could clearly tell then and there the Start Menu reached its peak, and that something else would be replacing it shortly.

Third, you can group tiles together on the Start Screen. Why have everything buried away from the user?

1. Thanks for hint, but Media Center was still oriented towards fullscreen / large type. It isn't a metaphor useful for detailed desktop use (I routinely have a couple of documents in Word and/or pdf and a browser open, to do real work). It's a lean-back consumption interface, not a lean-forward creative interface.
2. Start menu not "outdated", still Complementary to other ways to get to apps. You can have both.
3. Start screen is no less "buried", as I work in desktop mode. Clicking start button no harder than finding hot corner (indeed, easier if running Win8 in a window e.g. vmware or remote). And Start menu MUCH better as it doesn't suddenly take over my entire screen, and attack my eyes with those awful hyperactive epilepsy-inducing tiles.

I'm trying to help. The criticisms of Win8 UI are proper and reasonable ones. Listen, you and the rest of your team, just listen!

Dot Matrix said,

Metro isn't a "phone based UI" - do you even remember where it first came from? (Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Media_Center_Edition)

Second, the Start Menu was rendered largely outdated by the Search and pinning features of Windows 7. You could clearly tell then and there the Start Menu reached its peak, and that something else would be replacing it shortly.

Third, you can group tiles together on the Start Screen. Why have everything buried away from the user?


Media Center was a Great Program, way ahead of its time, that ended up butchered and crippled by MS itself. Besides one of the most popular request for MC was the ability to run it "windowed" and not locking the entire screen..... Sounds familiar?

Fritzly said,

Media Center was a Great Program, way ahead of its time, that ended up butchered and crippled by MS itself. Besides one of the most popular request for MC was the ability to run it "windowed" and not locking the entire screen..... Sounds familiar?

MC was best ran full screen.

Zagadka said,
MS isn't really interested in "what users want"...

And that is the primary reason windows 8 is a total failure.

Dot Matrix said,

MC was best ran full screen.


Huh? Who decided that? I frequently use it windowed for watching live tv on my workstation, no need for fullscreen if you're not only watching some videos...

Dot Matrix said,

MC was best ran full screen.


Never had a problem with the option to do it, again what people wanted, also because there were not so many people using three 22" screens as I did, was an option to run it in a window.... when needed.
Flexibility is the magic,word here; I personally do not care much for a start menu or a start,screen and I would not mind to use Metro apps, once they will become functional, but I want the option to run them "windowed" if and when it seems useful to me doing so.

I still wonder (or not...) why I saw not any sketch from all this analyst about how win 9 should look like. Seems to me they are all very happy with the 18 year old win 95 GUI.

Well, if Microsoft is bringing back a UI that dates back to the 70s, why should we be sad about liking a UI that is 18 years old...

The way the questions were put to people will have greatly influenced the outcome. These surveys are usually not objective and often set up to more or less provide the desired outcome.

im not bothered by the loss of the start menu. .that much.

the thing that annoys me are the full screen apps that just waste space, and I hate how switching between apps is done in windows 8, I like the old style of having multiple programs open and clicking on the one I want to switch rather than having to alt tab through all of them.

Haha I love how running windowed apps is now the "old style" and running fullscreen apps is the "new style". Welcome to the 1970s everyone.

Start menu is Dead.. Good Job.... Start Screen is much Better.. I Hated windows 8 at 1st but now i Love the Fact i can just Pin what I want and hide all the Stuff i Don't want.

count0nz said,
but now i Love the Fact i can just Pin what I want and hide all the Stuff i Don't want.

...And the same thing can be done with the Start menu. Next.

count0nz said,
Start menu is Dead.. Good Job.... Start Screen is much Better.. I Hated windows 8 at 1st but now i Love the Fact i can just Pin what I want and hide all the Stuff i Don't want.

hahahaha WOW, thats new! Im going to buy 8 copies!!!!


NO

Ian William said,

...And the same thing can be done with the Start menu. Next.

With the Start Menu, I was able to pin 10 or less apps. With Start, I can pin 30. Just sayin.

Dot Matrix said,

With the Start Menu, I was able to pin 10 or less apps. With Start, I can pin 30. Just sayin.


I pin 0 on either so the advantage for me is exactly what?

Dot Matrix said,

With the Start Menu, I was able to pin 10 or less apps. With Start, I can pin 30. Just sayin.

With the start menu you can pin a lot more than 10, so you limited yourself. Just sayin'.

JaredFrost said,

With the start menu you can pin a lot more than 10, so you limited yourself. Just sayin'.

So, lets change what worked for almost 15 years for the people who pin more than 10 apps

Dot Matrix said,

With the Start Menu, I was able to pin 10 or less apps. With Start, I can pin 30. Just sayin.

Actually, one can pin more than 10 items to the Start menu if using small icons.
Also, if one adds more links to the right-hand pane, this increases the vertical length of the Start menu, allowing for even more pinned items. Remember to increase your screen resolution if you decide to do this!

Dot Matrix said,

Why not take advantage of that extra space? That why it's there.

Have you ever seen how many items one can pin to the superbar on a 27" QHD display? Why should I use another hidden location for pinning? It just clutters the UI...
Furthermore the start menu actually can take use of that space for frequently used programs automatically...
Btw: you can pin 30 programs to the start menu if you wish to do so...

IDC is full of ****. statistics from actual windows users show the majority of users dont ever use the start menu. Just a bunch of whiners on the internet,what else is new.

Read all the BS online,then go check out the real world, totally different universes.

I was at futureshop the other day,and some lady came in and said she was looking for a laptop. The dumb**** salesman tried to sell her an ipad instead because he is a goddamn stupid fanboy. She said NO, I WANT AN HP.I dont want ipad,i dont want acer,i dont want asus,i want HP.

Then another man came in looking at a laptop. The guy saw all the windows 8 laptops,then looked at me and said,can these things come with windows 7 instead? I said why do you want windows 7? he said i need to access the control panel and install printers.I told him windows 8 has every feature of windows 7 but has more stuff. Then this same dumbass salesman comes in and interrupts our conversation. The guy asks him if he can do what he can do with windows 7. The salesman tells him no. Then the salesman tells him if he has checked out the ipad. The guy says his wife has one but he needs a pc.He asks the salesman if I access the control panel like in windows 7. The salesman pauses for a full minute,then says NO. Then looks around. I call him out on it,and the guy buying the computer leaves in disgust.

Yes, because a salesperson tells you the whole story.....

While the information they were giving was incorrect, it does not lead one to conclude that this same person would like the start screen over the start menu, does it?

I've had to correct a lot of people over false information about Windows 8(information they got from FutureShop and Best Buy) and I hate the UI, the actual statistics are one sided and likely incorrect AND exaggerated in their effort to push their App Store, most of the time the service used to gather those stats are disabled, right there you don't have all the information to correctly base the statistics on. I'll end my rant here, ending with, of course a salesmen tried to sell a more expensive device, but, you also gave this person incorrect information when you said Windows 8 has every feature Windows 7 has, that's flat out incorrect.

Booting into the desktop is a stupid complaint to have. I have had W8 installed on my desktop since the day it came out, and I NEVER use Metro apps, but I do not give two sh**s about clicking the "Desktop" tile the once every 3 weeks my computer is rebooted.

remixedcat said,
Apple's UI is stagnant and looks dated and metro looks fresh and clean.

Only this isn't a post about Apple whatsoever .... dedicated fanboys are hilarious

remixedcat said,
Apple's UI is stagnant and looks dated and metro looks fresh and clean.

Couldn't disagree more. What I like about Apple is they keep improving on a certain base they set and gradually move things in another direction if needed. Users are slowly eased into something new. It's a much better approach than shocking people into something radically different and still early in development. Windows 8 and RT are an incoherent mess of Metro and Desktop with legacy interface elements all over the place. Try comparing that with OS X Mountain Lion where Apple took the time to redraw many icons to have a crisper appearance. The only thing I want is the disappearance of skeuomorphic app design. Just stick to default Aqua.

.Neo said,

Couldn't disagree more. What I like about Apple is they keep improving on a certain base they set and gradually move things in another direction if needed. Users are slowly eased into something new. It's a much better approach than shocking people into something radically different and still early in development. Windows 8 and RT are an incoherent mess of Metro and Desktop with legacy interface elements all over the place. Try comparing that with OS X Mountain Lion where Apple took the time to redraw many icons to have a crisper appearance. The only thing I want is the disappearance of skeuomorphic app design. Just stick to default Aqua.

There's tons of legacy junk still splattered all over Windows 7 too. Why do you think Microsoft is starting off with a new UI and UX?

Dot Matrix said,
There's tons of legacy junk still splattered all over Windows 7 too. Why do you think Microsoft is starting off with a new UI and UX?

Yeah because Microsoft doesn't stick with one thing and improve upon it. Jumping from UX to UX every couple of years or so and never finish it isn't going to help at all. The Windows team is lacking some serious commitment to bring us a finished product. Look at Windows 7: They introduced a new cartoonish icon style for some apps, but didn't go fully through. With Windows 8 they introduced a Metro theme, but neglected to change the system icons (unlike the Office team) to match. They're constantly doing a half-assed job in this regard.

Dot Matrix said,

There's tons of legacy junk still splattered all over Windows 7 too. Why do you think Microsoft is starting off with a new UI and UX?

Because they hate their customers?

remixedcat said,
People say Windows 8 looks bad.... this is why said this

Only problem is that people using W8 do not necessarily use and care what Apple OS does.

The problem with "add the Windows 7 start menu" as a suggestion is that "a specific UI implementation from a previous version of Windows" is not a scenario. The question is, what do you want to do that's better served by the Windows 7 version of the start menu than the new start screen. Then we can start talking about how the UI can be modified or augmented to better support your scenario. The best answer is pretty unlikely to be adding an entire separate parallel launcher that exists alongside the new Start, and in fact might not involve the start menu/screen at all (for example, if your biggest complaint is that you can't launch apps without a full screen view change, but the way you generally want to launch apps is via search, the best way to serve this scenario might be via modifying the search charm rather than Start).

Hal Berenson recently authored a good blog post that goes into this a bit: http://hal2020.com/2013/03/07/what-if-m ... fferently/

Quote:

Here is the problem plain and simple. Windows 8 is a V1 product and it needs to be a V2 product. Take the Start Screen vs. Start Menu debate. It isn't that Microsoft needed to retain the cascading start menu, it is that it needed to provide a reasonable alternative for desktop workstation users. In previous blogs I've thrown out an example. Why isn't there a snapped view for the Start Screen? Then when in the desktop you could have Start bring up the snapped view (assuming a monitor that supports it, which is overwhelmingly the case) instead of losing the desktop to a full screen Start Screen. Why on high-resolution monitors can't you have multiple snapped views, or even a couple of “full screen” views? That would mitigate the desktop user complaint of Metro not being suitable for large monitors. I don't think Microsoft completely ignored these questions (and as I've mentioned before, I once saw a Windows 8 build demoed with a snapped view on the left and one on the right with full screen view in the middle), I think they just didn't make the cut for “V1″.

Overall I think the direction Microsoft chose, and the decision to force accelerate the move to the new app and user model, was the correct one. I would more question some of the individual tradeoffs that were made to make sure the release was in the market for the holiday 2012 shopping season. And, as my previous post discussed, is Microsoft's current penchant for secrecy making this situation worse? Imagine if Microsoft was talking about, and perhaps even demoing, my idea for a Snapped Start Screen (or some other alternative) already. And publicly promising a free upgrade to the release containing it for Windows 8 purchasers. And even talking about that release being later this year. I doubt Microsoft would have lost a single Windows 8 sale. In fact, I think the change in criticism (from “Windows 8 is a disaster for desktop workstation users” to a softer “some users would be better off waiting a few months for the update” would actually boost overall Windows 8 sales. When it comes to computing devices, even consumers often buy-in to where you are going more than buying the specific product.

I agree that an alternative would be just as good. I do worry however that Microsoft is trying to make a move away from the desktop paradigm on all systems, not just touch enabled devices.

It may well be the current fad but having one full screen app running at a time and only being able to install approved apps is taking computing back about 30 years.

When you only use desktop mode, that extra-click you have to do everytime you start the computer starts to irk you very fast.

An option to enable/disable boot to destktop would be the sane way to go.

I don't understand who is rebooting their computers so much. I put it into sleep daily, it uses barely any power and then when I return to use it again, it is lively and works just as expected. I only reboot when a system update or other update requires it.
So booting into the desktop is something that should occur rarely anyway. Mine opens into the desktop after sleep every time since that is where I left it.

Mortis said,
When you only use desktop mode, that extra-click you have to do everytime you start the computer starts to irk you very fast.

An option to enable/disable boot to destktop would be the sane way to go.

Than pin your desktop apps to Start, then once you boot up, click the app's icon. It'll take you direct to the desktop, AND launch your app at the same time, which actually saves you click, compared to traditional desktop icons, which need a double click.

I don't suppose you thought of that though...

users in companies with stringent policies on installed apps will probably have no use for the metro UI, and app store.

The main improvements in Windows 8 are in the background.
It'll be useful if Microsoft ships a corporate version with Windows 8 backend and Windows 7's aero UI.

People need to upgrade their hardware to have touchscreens, and Microsoft has to get OEMs to make touchscreen hardware cheaper for people to do so. When I use my TabletPC as a tablet, I don't touch the desktop. When I use it as a laptop, I'm in desktop 75% of the time. I don't miss the cramped Start Menu at all in either case. The Start Screen carries all the same functionality that the Start Menu. If anything it's just the Start Menu full screened.
It isn't about getting used to it, it's about getting the stubbornness against change out of the attitudes of users. Users are more incline to change if things go bad, and less incline when things are just fine. Vista to 7 didn't really have much change for me. I had hardware that worked well for Vista and moving to 7 didn't drastically do anything at all, but for the media hyping 7 up, and those defaming Vista on crappy hardware, it was life changing for them. Just human psyche at it's best again.

They will never add a start menu because that would be an admission that they did something wrong and their pride/arrogance will not allow that to happen.

Long before windows 8 was released we tried to tell microsoft/Ballmer that windows 8 would fail if they didn't change their direction, due to their own blind arrogance they chose not to listen, today windows 8 is a colossal failure like no other failure before it, worse than Vista, worse than Me.

Microsoft/Ballmer you fully deserve this black eye that you have given yourself.

When you have 91% of the market, not everyone is going to like the new direction. As more devices become touch and the UI paradigm matures, the want for the start screen will diminish.

I do wish, however, that a boot to desktop option was available from the get go.

To avoid the usual complaining about the Start Screen (Start8 etc is an acceptable compromise for me)...

What is really bad is that most program installations really pollute the Start Screen with Readmes and crap, or don't have thumbnails that match the design of Modern apps and make the screen look horrible.

The same could be said regarding the "traditional" start menu. Is that a Microsoft problem or more so the 3rd party's problem? I'd wager to guess it's the latter.

I do agree with you on lack of unifying icons though. We'll hopefully see tighter integration with desktop apps in the start screen but in the mean time there's OblyTile.

Sranshaft said,
The same could be said regarding the "traditional" start menu. Is that a Microsoft problem or more so the 3rd party's problem? I'd wager to guess it's the latter.

I do agree with you on lack of unifying icons though. We'll hopefully see tighter integration with desktop apps in the start screen but in the mean time there's OblyTile.

It's a Microsoft problem. The start menu was at least organized into folders. Microsoft reworked the system into the start screen but decided to support legacy installs by just dumping all the shortcuts into the start screen. It's unreasonable to expect that programs should update their installers instantly rather than just handling them gracefully. You can work around it of course but it's a pain.

Was the old startmenu much better? You installed something, get an desktop icon, a taskbar entry and you must reorder your startmenu after the installation. No, the start screen is not more worse than the start menu, for programm installations, in my opinion.

With the programs I have installed, I have only had the exe show up in the Start Screen in the majority of instances. I can only recall one instance where it added one or two extra things.
But I believe it is setup smarter and programmed to only allow exe's on the start screen during install. True I have not installed a lot of desktop programs, but all I have had to do is move the icon to the location I want it on the start screen, not delete extra icons or delete a folder created for just that program which I didn't want.

Sekyal said,
With the programs I have installed, I have only had the exe show up in the Start Screen in the majority of instances. I can only recall one instance where it added one or two extra things.
But I believe it is setup smarter and programmed to only allow exe's on the start screen during install. True I have not installed a lot of desktop programs, but all I have had to do is move the icon to the location I want it on the start screen, not delete extra icons or delete a folder created for just that program which I didn't want.

Then I think you need to install more programs... This is a very real issue and I'm not sure what they could do in the way of a fix.

Lastwebpage said,
Was the old startmenu much better? You installed something, get an desktop icon, a taskbar entry and you must reorder your startmenu after the installation. No, the start screen is not more worse than the start menu, for programm installations, in my opinion.

The desktop icon has nothing to do with the start menu and is usually optional during installs anyway. It also isn't common for programs to pin themselves to the taskbar (or what use to be the quicklaunch bar) and when this does happen it's almost always an opt-in option.

I'm not sure what you mean by having to reorder the start menu after installs. The program icons are all sorted in their respective folders which are in turn sorted alphabetically. You would only have to reorder this if you choose to organize your programs in some custom manner.

The primary difference between this and the start screen being that there is no default organization. This FORCES me to micromanage the start screen where the start menu was sufficiently organized by default.

I install plenty of windows applications and games and no my modern interface does not get cluttered with a bunch of icons, pretty much all that shows there is the main exe to open the program I have installed.

Well having used the Start Screen for months I think i don't really mind it. But I just hate how most stuff are hidden by default and you need to right click and click All Apps just to show them (or use the Search, which I feel shouldn't segregate between Apps, Settings and Files).

Wish there's an option for a smaller-sized Start Screen in desktop mode though. I remember in the DP/CP you could use the Search charm and it will only pop up at the right side of your desktop and not pop up the full Start Screen.

And another issue I realise is that I often have problems memorising where I put a certain app on the Start Screen. Maybe the muscle memory hasn't come to me yet.

Lastly, they should take a page from WP8 and allow even smaller-sized tiles. That would solve many complains especially on smaller 768p screens.

Don't worry, soon they will follow. They do like importing all kinds of ideas to Windows 8.

Just like the editor from CNET said, the real problem with Windows 8 is the lack of REAL innovation. Windows 8 reforms the Windows family, not the tech industry. There's nothing made you say "Wow" on this release: Optimization for Touch Screen, Integration of Cloud services, Ribbon, Live Tiles, etc.. are all borrowed conceptions from various platforms, either within or without Microsoft Corporation. The worst part is that these concepts are poorly sewed together into a big pile of mess. And I fail to see the hope that Microsoft would realize what exactly goes wrong.

All this tells me is that most users are just a bunch of whiners. Everyone preaches "choice" and the "freedom to use what you want", however, I call BS on that. Even if MS left the start menu in and allowed more "freedom of choice" then the forums would be full of people moaning that MS doesn't innovate or that it shouldn't of been left in blah blah. Anyway, that void has been filled with 3rd party apps and MS are not actively blocking or discouraging the usage of these apps. So why people still complain? you have your choice! why does it matter whether it was included out of the box or not....

Why do they? I don't know, maybe because it's not there as an option from the start, you need to go out and download/purchase it separately, and it could break with a simple Windows update.

If very much matters if it's included out of the box, for both compatibility and support reasons.

JaredFrost said,
Why do they? I don't know, maybe because it's not there as an option from the start, you need to go out and download/purchase it separately, and it could break with a simple Windows update.

If very much matters if it's included out of the box, for both compatibility and support reasons.


+1

JaredFrost said,
Why do they? I don't know, maybe because it's not there as an option from the start, you need to go out and download/purchase it separately, and it could break with a simple Windows update.

If very much matters if it's included out of the box, for both compatibility and support reasons.

no, most of them don't break with windows updates. in fact I think Start Menu 8 is the only one with that possibility. good start menu replacers like Start8 have zero chance of breaking with a windows update

ambiance said,
Forget the start menu, how about an App Store that doesn't suck ass.

Better than the app store that Apple created for OS X... probably 4x as many apps within months.

rfirth said,

And why isn't it? .


As far as I can see, there's no equivalent to apps in the category of Final Cut, Logic,Aperture, Xcode, Pixelmator, Pages,Numbers,Keynote,iPhoto,Garageband,iMovie, Coda, etc. in the Windows store. And the selection of high quality apps in the Windows store seems miniscule compared to the Mac App Store. Or maybe I just haven't been able to discover the excellent Windows Store apps, in which case it seems to be severely lacking in discoverability.

CSharp. said,

As far as I can see, there's no equivalent to apps in the category of Final Cut, Logic,Aperture, Xcode, Pixelmator, Pages,Numbers,Keynote,iPhoto,Garageband,iMovie, Coda, etc. in the Windows store. And the selection of high quality apps in the Windows store seems miniscule compared to the Mac App Store. Or maybe I just haven't been able to discover the excellent Windows Store apps, in which case it seems to be severely lacking in discoverability.

If you're looking for equivalent apps to Pages and Xcode in the Windows Store, they are there. Take a look. Office 2013 and Visual Studio are listed.

You're right, though, you can't download them directly. Desktop apps aren't managed by the Windows Store, only listed. But that's mainly because people are seriously paranoid and would complain... even if it's for the best. But yes, you're right.

ambiance said,
Forget the start menu, how about an App Store that doesn't suck ass.

Discoverability needs to be greatly improved. That's for sure.

Running metro apps windowed is far more important to me than a start menu.

In fact i would rather have the start screen as an interactive desktop background than a start menu. I really wish the start screen could be used as the background of my desktop and that metro apps could be windowed natively.

LaP said,
Running metro apps windowed is far more important to me than a start menu.

In fact i would rather have the start screen as an interactive desktop background than a start menu. I really wish the start screen could be used as the background of my desktop and that metro apps could be windowed natively.


How could making the Start Screen the Desktop Background be better? You would still have to click back to the Desktop or minimize windows to launch a program... I can't believe I'm saying this, but your suggestion makes the Start Screen efficient...

LaP said,
Running metro apps windowed is far more important to me than a start menu.

In fact i would rather have the start screen as an interactive desktop background than a start menu. I really wish the start screen could be used as the background of my desktop and that metro apps could be windowed natively.

That would lead to massive amounts of mis-clicks.

Raa said,
It seems the statistics are agreeing.

Apparently they aren't unless of course you consider an OS reaching 3% marketshare in just 4 months to be a "failure" whilst at the same time completely ignoring the current market variables. 60 million licenses have been sold, it seems only very few people "vote with their wallet".

sjaak327 said,

Apparently they aren't unless of course you consider an OS reaching 3% marketshare in just 4 months to be a "failure" whilst at the same time completely ignoring the current market variables. 60 million licenses have been sold, it seems only very few people "vote with their wallet".

Here we go again.

First of all, the majority of these licenses are sold directly to OEMs, not to individuals who actually use the OS. Based on OEMs' thought about Windows 8 (Acer's "not successful", Samsung's "no better than Vista" and Fujitsu's "fails to help"), I guess a lot of those license are dusting on the shelf.

Secondly, Windows 8's current market share is 2.74%, less than 3%, and most of all, it has the slowest adoption rate compared to Windows 7 and Windows Vista at the same timeframe. And we also have to stress that the entire industry(excluding tablets and mobiles) are actually declining instead of thriving, adding that Windows Vista wasn't launched near the holiday shopping season, We can conclude that we have a fair background for comparison.

Ratros said,

Here we go again.

First of all, the majority of these licenses are sold directly to OEMs, not to individuals who actually use the OS. Based on OEMs' thought about Windows 8 (Acer's "not successful", Samsung's "no better than Vista" and Fujitsu's "fails to help"), I guess a lot of those license are dusting on the shelf.

Secondly, Windows 8's current market share is 2.74%, less than 3%, and most of all, it has the slowest adoption rate compared to Windows 7 and Windows Vista at the same timeframe. And we also have to stress that the entire industry(excluding tablets and mobiles) are actually declining instead of thriving, adding that Windows Vista wasn't launched near the holiday shopping season, We can conclude that we have a fair background for comparison.

You obviously missed the market variables. Unbelievable that people utter things they have no clue about. Vista was launched over 6 years ago, when there wasn't a global economic crisis and when the desktop market was increasing not decreasing, not to mention that this market did not have the competition it has now. Windows 8 usage share is consistent with any Windows version and well above any non Windows version.

Of course Microsoft sells the majority of their licenses to businesses and OEM's. It did so with Vista, 7 and as a consequence of the norm with 8. Nobody but people who have no clue about the market believe that OEM's would buy massive amounts of licenses just to lie them on a shelve. For Microsoft's bottom line it doesn't matter, they don't get paid by netmarket statistics but by licenses sold. The facts are that Windows 8 sold over 60 million in three months, which is comparable to what Windows 7 sold when that OS launched. All else is besides the point.

Oh, let's not come to that point either.

Indeed, Windows Vista was blessed with a thriving global economy, while Windows 8 wasn't. However, Like I've mentioned above, Windows Vista wasn't launch at a holiday season, by which I mean crazy-shopping time. So to a certain degree the comparison is still fair.

And you say competition? Windows Family holds a absolute majority of Desktop + Laptop market share, the biggest competition is the one against itself. In conclusion, if Microsoft failed to do a complete alternation of generations, soon we'll get a clustered Windows ecosystem, where Windows XP, Windows Vista + Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows Blue are all in mainstream. Smell trouble? Cause developers have to coding multiple versions of the same software, one for Windows XP + Windows 7(We care by providing legacy support), one for Windows 8(Hail to Modern Apps), perhaps another for Windows Blue(Sorry, we're having compatibility problems). Heck, al least I would jump off this burning train to other platforms.

Plus, low market share data does hurt. Simple answer: OEM won't replenish their license pools unless current one sells out. The general effect will be seen in the following financial seasons.

Ratros said,
Oh, let's not come to that point either.

Indeed, Windows Vista was blessed with a thriving global economy, while Windows 8 wasn't. However, Like I've mentioned above, Windows Vista wasn't launch at a holiday season, by which I mean crazy-shopping time. So to a certain degree the comparison is still fair.

And you say competition? Windows Family holds a absolute majority of Desktop + Laptop market share, the biggest competition is the one against itself. In conclusion, if Microsoft failed to do a complete alternation of generations, soon we'll get a clustered Windows ecosystem, where Windows XP, Windows Vista + Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows Blue are all in mainstream. Smell trouble? Cause developers have to coding multiple versions of the same software, one for Windows XP + Windows 7(We care by providing legacy support), one for Windows 8(Hail to Modern Apps), perhaps another for Windows Blue(Sorry, we're having compatibility problems). Heck, al least I would jump off this burning train to other platforms.

Plus, low market share data does hurt. Simple answer: OEM won't replenish their license pools unless current one sells out. The general effect will be seen in the following financial seasons.

You are forgetting the competition does not come from other desktop operating systems, but from mobile operating systems, that competition was totally absent at the time of Vista's launch. The holdiay season (is this season consistent the world over ?) has a minimum effect, so does the introduction price of the os (which of course Vista and 7 certainky enjoyed as well, even for free). In any case, upgraders (the 30 USD was targetted to upgraders only) have always been inconsequential, very few people actually upgrade, most get the latest Windows version by buying a new machine. And contrary to Vista's launch, the replacment rate has gone up considerably. I take myself as an example, I would replace my machines once every three years at the minimum, now my oldest computer is already three years old, but since this machine is powered by an I7 920, there is no incentive to replace it any time soon. It is still very much offering excellent performance.

Not sure about your development story XP, vista, 7 and 8 all have the win32 api so targetting all of these with ond program is easy enough using native unmanaged code, and even easier using .net Managed coce.

Skittlebrau said,
With their dominance in the market, they'd be one of the few companies who can just say "no" and continue on their way.

Coke disagree with you...

No - what it tells me is a lot about USERS.

If something requires that you change how you do things, most users can't be bothered.

PGHammer said,
No - what it tells me is a lot about USERS.

If something requires that you change how you do things, most users can't be bothered.

I don't think that's entirely true. I think most users can be bothered when they see a benefit from the change. The start screen offers no benefit for the desktop user.

IgorP said,

I don't think that's entirely true. I think most users can be bothered when they see a benefit from the change. The start screen offers no benefit for the desktop user.


+1

But this contradicts Microsoft's "research", which stated no one actually uses the Start menu, and everyone's migrating to tablets.

This tells me a lot about "Microsoft research"...

68k said,
But this contradicts Microsoft's "research", which stated no one actually uses the Start menu, and everyone's migrating to tablets.

This tells me a lot about "Microsoft research"...

No, Microsoft's research told them that the first thing people do is open the start menu... hence why you now boot directly to a full screen start menu, cutting out the first step.

rfirth said,

No, Microsoft's research told them that the first thing people do is open the start menu... hence why you now boot directly to a full screen start menu, cutting out the first step.

really? my first action is click on Shortcut Icon on Desktop.

Desktop accomodates more shortcut icon possible than tiled start screen at first glance.

Besides, the cumbersone start-screen metro have strangely-annoying way to open more than 1 instance of program ...
http://www.foolsdesign.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22

68k said,
But this contradicts Microsoft's "research", which stated no one actually uses the Start menu, and everyone's migrating to tablets.

This tells me a lot about "Microsoft research"...


its not research.its fact. when you setup your computer,you can choose to send statistics to microsoft.Using this information,they saw that the majority of windows users never use the start menu.

Torolol said,

really? my first action is click on Shortcut Icon on Desktop.

Does the world revolve around you? So you represent all Windows users?

Torolol said,

Desktop accomodates more shortcut icon possible than tiled start screen at first glance.

Can you scroll to see more shortcuts? Do they give live information? Can you customise the colour / appearance? Does a screen filled with icons not look ugly?

Torolol said,

Besides, the cumbersone start-screen metro have strangely-annoying way to open more than 1 instance of program ...
http://www.foolsdesign.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22

Shift + Click.

vcfan said,

its not research.its fact. when you setup your computer,you can choose to send statistics to microsoft.Using this information,they saw that the majority of windows users never use the start menu.

I'm not surprised. You don't use the Start menu all the time - only when required - but it's an essential part of Windows for desktop users. Without the Start screen, how are you supposed to access Control Panel for instance, without opening an Explorer window (or going through the Run prompt)? Everything is in one place with the Start menu - back in 95, it's the feature that made Mac OS/System 7 look weak.

We should conduct our own research. I guarantee at least 75% of Windows users still use the Start menu occasionally/frequently!

I personally love the Start menu - it's pure genius in UI design. Well done Microsoft.

Edited by 68k, Mar 10 2013, 10:30am :

68k said,
But this contradicts Microsoft's "research", which stated no one actually uses the Start menu, and everyone's migrating to tablets.

This tells me a lot about "Microsoft research"...

"Micosoft's research" is a desperate attempt to catch on mobile and tablet devices. The users are now stuck with a messy, hybrid desktop/tablet OS.

On Windows 9 they must remove Start Screen and all tablet-related bloat, bring back Start Menu, improve Windows Media Player, and replace the old desktop icons with 2D modern ones. And then, create a distinct touch-based OS for your 3% market share in that segment.

PC EliTiST said,

"Micosoft's research" is a desperate attempt to catch on mobile and tablet devices. The users are now stuck with a messy, hybrid desktop/tablet OS.

On Windows 9 they must remove Start Screen and all tablet-related bloat, bring back Start Menu, improve Windows Media Player, and replace the old desktop icons with 2D modern ones. And then, create a distinct touch-based OS for your 3% market share in that segment.


^ This.

PC EliTiST said,

"Micosoft's research" is a desperate attempt to catch on mobile and tablet devices. The users are now stuck with a messy, hybrid desktop/tablet OS.

On Windows 9 they must remove Start Screen and all tablet-related bloat, bring back Start Menu, improve Windows Media Player, and replace the old desktop icons with 2D modern ones. And then, create a distinct touch-based OS for your 3% market share in that segment.


Agreed. This is what I've been saying too. What they did, as much as I like Microsoft, is just a mess.

vcfan said,

its not research.its fact. when you setup your computer,you can choose to send statistics to microsoft.Using this information,they saw that the majority of windows users never use the start menu.

"
252 people liked it

like

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything"

Joseph Stalin

68k said,
But this contradicts Microsoft's "research", which stated no one actually uses the Start menu, and everyone's migrating to tablets.

This tells me a lot about "Microsoft research"...

It says more to me that IDC conducted an opinion poll, not research. How do they even know the respondents used the OS?

PC EliTiST said,

"Micosoft's research" is a desperate attempt to catch on mobile and tablet devices. The users are now stuck with a messy, hybrid desktop/tablet OS.

On Windows 9 they must remove Start Screen and all tablet-related bloat, bring back Start Menu, improve Windows Media Player, and replace the old desktop icons with 2D modern ones. And then, create a distinct touch-based OS for your 3% market share in that segment.

So you want Microsoft to go back in time 10 years? Microsoft is unifying their systems and services. There's no rule saying a desktop needs to be filled with tiny 10x10 controls, or that the market needs flooded with 10 billion different Windows versions. That would actually be worse. It would be a support nightmare, and require more work.

Fool's design said,

Well, we disagree. http://www.foolsdesign.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22#p296 , you see, you just proved the point of the original poster. What is invisible does not exist to most of the end users. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's still a better solution than right clicking the application on the taskbar to start a new instance (shift+clicking works there too). There are so many useful things unknown for the average user anyway. And I don't think most users often need multiple instances of a program...

(+ welcome to Neowin)

I do most of my work in desktop mode, but I like the start screen.

"Because they recognize some of the challenges that consumers are facing."

The challenge of pressing the desktop metro tile? If that's too challenging for MS users, MS might as well not make OSes.

I agree with the modern mix. Windows 8 needed that. But start menu? No, I think the start screen should have had more of the missing features, like an elegent way to access my computer, control panel, etc.

I don't miss the Start menu, and I rarely reboot my computer just for the pleasure of being able to stare at my desktop background image.

Relativity_17 said,
I don't miss the Start menu, and I rarely reboot my computer just for the pleasure of being able to stare at my desktop background image.

And I rarely boot my computer to look at a bunch of silly rectangles on a screen, so what's your point exactly? A computer is for getting work done, and it is supposed to enable the user to do that quickly and efficiently. Windows 8 tends to put obstacles in front of the user that they must overcome to do any real work.

Did you know that you can click on those "silly rectangles" to launch programs, thus saving you the trouble of clicking on a silly button to open up the start menu and then launching said program? Saving one step seems to be improving speed and efficiency.

Relativity_17 said,
Did you know that you can click on those "silly rectangles" to launch programs, thus saving you the trouble of clicking on a silly button to open up the start menu and then launching said program? Saving one step seems to be improving speed and efficiency.

Stop being logical damnit.

Chris123NT said,

And I rarely boot my computer to look at a bunch of silly rectangles on a screen, so what's your point exactly? A computer is for getting work done, and it is supposed to enable the user to do that quickly and efficiently. Windows 8 tends to put obstacles in front of the user that they must overcome to do any real work.

It doesn't put obstacles in the way though. Its pretty straightforward and easy to use and I can open anything quicker in 8 than I could in 7.

Click on those little rectangles to ... open a fairly rubbish toy app that fills the entire screen and blocks out everything else. This might be OK on a SmartPhone or on a tablet where you're not expecting to do anything useful or productive but on a PC?
I have Windows 8 on my laptop and go straight to the desktop. I don't find any of the toy apps useful in the slightest.

Relativity_17 said,
Did you know that you can click on those "silly rectangles" to launch programs, thus saving you the trouble of clicking on a silly button to open up the start menu and then launching said program? Saving one step seems to be improving speed and efficiency.

Do you know you can do the same by pinning programs to the taskbar? Stop being a troll ass.
More than that, the taskbar is always visible, so you can open as many apps you want at the same time and ... as a bonus.. the desktop apps don't take the entire screen.

Which do you think I found more convenient?

Chris123NT said,

And I rarely boot my computer to look at a bunch of silly rectangles on a screen, so what's your point exactly? A computer is for getting work done, and it is supposed to enable the user to do that quickly and efficiently. Windows 8 tends to put obstacles in front of the user that they must overcome to do any real work.

Not sure what obstacles you talk off. For me using Windows 8 is all about getting work done. It is undeniably faster than Windows 7, it boots up much faster, without the need for overpriced ssd's, it utilises less memory and boost a true type 1 hypervisor. Multi monitor support is much better, so is the file explorer.

Maybe the obstacles are all in your head ?

sjaak327 said,

it boots up much faster, without the need for overpriced ssd's

No wonder, it's using hibernation... Try a valid comparison...
Overpriced? You must be living in a different world...

sjaak327 said,

Multi monitor support is much better, so is the file explorer.

Yep, definitely in Metro...

Chris123NT said,

And I rarely boot my computer to look at a bunch of silly rectangles on a screen, so what's your point exactly? A computer is for getting work done, and it is supposed to enable the user to do that quickly and efficiently. Windows 8 tends to put obstacles in front of the user that they must overcome to do any real work.

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying since the Beta. Windows 8 is great if all you're doing is playing a game or checking e-mail. But if you are actually getting work done, you are fighting the OS. It just shouldn't be like that...

M_Lyons10 said,

EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying since the Beta. Windows 8 is great if all you're doing is playing a game or checking e-mail. But if you are actually getting work done, you are fighting the OS. It just shouldn't be like that...

And as I will keep saying, complaining about difficulty doing work on Win 8 sounds more like a personal problem than a problem using the system. I do work and I find it easier and faster on Win 8.

Thought its an interesting point you bring up - if Windows 8 is great for games and email and surfing the web, then it will very successful and Microsoft shouldn't change it by your own standards. Whatever you want to think, most users only use their computer to do those few things most of the time. Its why a redesign like this works.

spenser.d said,

It doesn't put obstacles in the way though. Its pretty straightforward and easy to use and I can open anything quicker in 8 than I could in 7.


Really? Try going to your user folder easily WITHOUT typing the path at the start screen. Can't be done, this took 2 clicks in Windows 7.

siah1214 said,

Stop being logical damnit.

It gets worse, them silly squares on the screen sometimes update with information that saves you having to even open the program to check! So just by looking at the screen without even touching the computer you might find yourself.. knowing!

Chris123NT said,

Really? Try going to your user folder easily WITHOUT typing the path at the start screen. Can't be done, this took 2 clicks in Windows 7.

Put mouse into bottom left of screen, Right click. Select File explorer from the popup menu.

Still not good enough? try this tip: From explorer. right click on your Documents folder (or what ever you call the user folder, maybe even C:\users\youusername\) and select Pin to Start. From then on, it's only 1 click away from the Start Screen. That's faster then Windows 7...

spenser.d said,
EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying since the Beta. Windows 8 is great if all you're doing is playing a game or checking e-mail. But if you are actually getting work done, you are fighting the OS. It just shouldn't be like that...


That's funny, I've been using Windows 8 on my powerhouse workstations every day to get real work done, and I don't fight the OS one bit. Start Screen > Start Menu in terms of usability and customization--not to mention the multi-monitor support and faster boot times.

cantoris said,
Click on those little rectangles to ... open a fairly rubbish toy app that fills the entire screen and blocks out everything else.

It's clear you haven't used the OS. Otherwise, you'd know you can launch any app from the Start Screen.

MFH said,

No wonder, it's using hibernation... Try a valid comparison...
Overpriced? You must be living in a different world...
Yep, definitely in Metro...

You must be living in that different world as Windows 8 is most definitely not using hibernation. The users session is actually closed down, which does not happen when you hibernate.

And yes, SSD are overpriced as compared to sata disks, pure and simple.

Chris123NT said,

Really? Try going to your user folder easily WITHOUT typing the path at the start screen. Can't be done, this took 2 clicks in Windows 7.

Hmm, sure this takes two clicks in Windows 8 as well, without any typing. You must not have used Windows 8 or it went over your head.

sjaak327 said,

You must be living in that different world as Windows 8 is most definitely not using hibernation. The users session is actually closed down, which does not happen when you hibernate.


Somehow you didn't get the info: the kernel and everything not user related gets hibernated...

By your definition every storage device but HDDs is overprices, too bad HDDs a extremely slow compared to more modern disk types...

MFH said,

Somehow you didn't get the info: the kernel and everything not user related gets hibernated...

By your definition every storage device but HDDs is overprices, too bad HDDs a extremely slow compared to more modern disk types...

I did get the info, and it is not hibernation, as hibernation resumes the user session. I know I know, you need a brain to digest that info. It is actually called hybrid boot and not hibernation for obvious reasons.

spenser.d said,

And as I will keep saying, complaining about difficulty doing work on Win 8 sounds more like a personal problem than a problem using the system. I do work and I find it easier and faster on Win 8.

Thought its an interesting point you bring up - if Windows 8 is great for games and email and surfing the web, then it will very successful and Microsoft shouldn't change it by your own standards. Whatever you want to think, most users only use their computer to do those few things most of the time. Its why a redesign like this works.


Unfortunately even Outlook Express is way better than the Metro Mail app.

ChrisJ1968 said,
I tried telling people not everyone wants the new UI. Now this just proves what I have been saying

What a stupid comment. Might as well tell people that not everyone wants Obama as president either...

headsoup said,

What a stupid comment. Might as well tell people that not everyone wants Obama as president either...


Well, if he weren't, MUCH more people would be able to afford Windows 8, so these numbers could be much better... But hey, we finally have a President that focuses on the little things. LOL

headsoup said,

What a stupid comment. Might as well tell people that not everyone wants Obama as president either...


It's not a stupid comment at all.

Microsoft removed the startmenu to force people into their metro ecosystem, as at the time they for some reason thought everyone should be moving to it.

However, Microsoft should have realised from the backlash when they first removed it in beta when everyone fought to bring it back via modding that people would still want to use it. Now I'm not saying that the removal of the start menu was a bad idea, nor that metro itself is. In fact, I quite like the idea.
Microsoft left metro and the classic desktop hanging in some kind of state where people aren't really sure what they're using.
I'd prefer it if Microsoft had left the start menu in there, in the same way they left program manager and file manager from the change over from win3x (program manager) to win9x (start menu).
But they've not done that, they've been bull headed and rammed it down the throats of its userbase knowing full well that they don't really have a choice if this is the way *Microsoft* wants to take windows.
So, sure you could stick with Windows 7... and when in 5 years time and Microsoft still hasn't got the start menu back and maybe even does away with the classic desktop you can continue to moan about the lack of start menu.
Unfortunately, there is no transaction from start menu to metro start screen. While it is pretty much the same and once you get used to it you'll prefer it more, there are people who do want to use the start menu still. There is no option, not even an hidden advanced button that people can enable to get it back...

What's more worring, is that there is also no way to get rid of the desktop either. Even on dedicated tablets like the Surface RT, you've got this weird desktop that's not very forgiving on a touch based machine. Not only that, but locking down accounts with metro only for kids/cyber cafes etc would be really useful to not let the users be able to access the desktop. But no, Microsoft didn't want that either.

So, what is that Microsoft really wants from all this?

A userbase for their ecosystem. Microsoft missed the boat on the smart phone/mobile computing. They're now working seriously hard to play catch up. With the introduction of Metro, they instantly get working app accounts that brings them up to the same level as Apple. If they hadn't have done that, they'd be left high and dry with a struggling 200k user base on it's apps, and near no developers to help out.

M_Lyons10 said,

Well, if he weren't, MUCH more people would be able to afford Windows 8, so these numbers could be much better... But hey, we finally have a President that focuses on the little things. LOL

Seriously dude, you think with McCain and the republican tax-cut for the wealthy mentality would lead to more people being able to afford computers today? Let's just stick to talking about tech.

Just stick with windows 7 if you want the start menu. And if you're so reluctant to use windows 8, there's many 3rd party apps to bring the start menu back and boot to the desktop.

People really shouldn't complain about something they don't use.

Memnochxx said,
Believe it or not, things other than the start menu have changed.

some like deliberate UGLYFICATION of the UI,
seriously the original Windows 95 UI were a lot friendlier to the eye than Windows 8 UI.

Torolol said,

some like deliberate UGLYFICATION of the UI,
seriously the original Windows 95 UI were a lot friendlier to the eye than Windows 8 UI.

Have you ever used Windows 95 on a touch device? the GUI is a **** to use.

link6155 said,
Just stick with windows 7 if you want the start menu. And if you're so reluctant to use windows 8, there's many 3rd party apps to bring the start menu back and boot to the desktop.

People really shouldn't complain about something they don't use.

If they don't use it, why are they complaining about its absence?

Toysoldier said,

Have you ever used Windows 95 on a touch device? the GUI is a **** to use.

Have you ever used Windows 8 on a non-touch device? the GUI is a **** to use(!)

link6155 said,
Just stick with windows 7 if you want the start menu. And if you're so reluctant to use windows 8, there's many 3rd party apps to bring the start menu back and boot to the desktop.

People really shouldn't complain about something they don't use.


Maybe people want the performance increase and under the hood improvements over Windows 7, getting sick of people saying "just use Windows 7".

link6155 said,
Just stick with windows 7 if you want the start menu. And if you're so reluctant to use windows 8, there's many 3rd party apps to bring the start menu back and boot to the desktop.

People really shouldn't complain about something they don't use.

Nope. You can't tell people whether should complain or not. Back in your cave, troll.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Maybe people want the performance increase and under the hood improvements over Windows 7, getting sick of people saying "just use Windows 7".

Now that Windows 7 received the Platform Update, there are no performance improvements anymore. Both are in the same level in the most important parts.

Windows 7 got other Windows 8 important features, likewise; and it will keep getting more in the future. Simply because Windows 7 is the nex XP.

Windows 8 has now only tablet-related bloat and marketplaces built-in.

Edited by PC EliTiST, Mar 10 2013, 11:26am :

Toysoldier said,

Have you ever used Windows 95 on a touch device? the GUI is a **** to use.


Have you ever used Windows 8 on a non-touch device? the GUI is a **** to use.

Toysoldier said,
Have you ever used Windows 95 on a touch device? the GUI is a **** to use.

Something that has hardly changed in Windows 8. For anything serious you still have to go to the desktop. Hell, even on the Surface.

Pffftttt.... even my girlfriend uses a non-touch desktop and non-touch laptop in Windows 8 with no issues. She knows that the start screen is there and read it through once... saw desktop... and clicked it. When she doesn't need the desktop she'll use IE Metro mode.

When she's using the HTPC, and she wants to watch Nashville or some lame show, she knows that she can just type and it will find the file. Which she knows is quicker than navigating through Desktop > Videos > drama > Nashville > filelist...

Memnochxx said,
Believe it or not, things other than the start menu have changed.

Exactly. I've seen a lot of stupid comments on tech sites over the years, but "Stay with Windows 7, it's the same thing" has the be at the top of the list...

zrelativity said,
I actually do use win8 on a desktop machine, the 27in monitor is not touch screen - not had any issues with usability.

We are on Neowin, which means we are more techno-literate and do not represent the other 99% of home and business computer users.

link6155 said,
Just stick with windows 7 if you want the start menu. And if you're so reluctant to use windows 8, there's many 3rd party apps to bring the start menu back and boot to the desktop.

People really shouldn't complain about something they don't use.

No, I want to use Windows 8 which, you might have noticed, offers both Desktop and Metro. The mistake by Microsoft was in not including an checking routine and/or manual option to chose the flavour. Not much to ask. Instead it seems like Microsoft spent the spare R&D money on ghastly photos and crass videos.
Please fix it!

FloatingFatMan said,

99.9999% of Windows users are not using touch devices.


Well, considering a very large part of the population owns a smart phone by now, I cannot imagine that being true.

Lamp Post said,

Well, considering a very large part of the population owns a smart phone by now, I cannot imagine that being true.

Nope, it's true. Windows is a desktop operating system. If I meant Windows Phone or Windows Mobile, or Windows CE, I would have said so.

Mind your language. What are you, 12?

All those touch screen devices you see aren't even a measurable percentage of sales compared to the non-touch market.