Microsoft: 'We're just not ready yet' with new Start menu

Microsoft's Start menu was arguably the biggest announcement to come out of BUILD 2014. The feature, which has been a hot request by users, will finally return to the operating system in a future update. But the big question on everyone's mind is, "When will it arrive?"

ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley got a chance to sit down with Terry Myerson, who talked about Xbox, Windows and, of course, the Start menu. But when questioned about the return of the feature, Myerson stated the following:

The reason we (showed) that work is we thought it was important to share with developers. When do I deliver it? I really don't have anything to share there. We're just not ready yet.

Even though the statement is quite bland, there is at least one take-away. Microsoft, under the Steven Sinofsky reign, was a bit more secretive about the future plans of Windows, and here we have Myerson being quite open about where the platform is heading. Even though not much was stated on timing, and that's to be expected, at least Microsoft is opening up its vision a bit more than we are accustomed to seeing in recent years.

As we previously noted, it was apparent at BUILD 2014 that there was resurgence occurring inside Microsoft under Nadella. Coupled with a Sinofsky-free environment, that's a good thing for consumers, as the company that makes the most-used operating system in the world now has a bit more spunk in its step. 

Source: Mary Jo Foley

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

BlackBerry CEO will dump handset business if it's not profitable [Update: maybe not]

Next Story

EU court: The Netherlands' citizens can't download copyrighted movies and music for free

105 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You do realise that, due to legal issues, US companies cannot always just state something about development? If they announce it like a fact, they're legally forced to make it so within that fiscal year.
It's one of the major reasons why these big companies are so vague on certain areas, or have NDA's running for beta users.

If they fail to follow these rules, there can be severe consequences. e.g. AVID was fined a couple of years back.

Poor MJ, she works her butt off covering this company and she gets to sit down with a guy who merely shows he's perfected the art of saying a lot while saying absolutely nothing.

A couple of his 'answers' are bordering on just being plain rude. Others he just avoids the actual question altogether. Ah PR talk, you are alive and well.

Obvious solution but while some people will use all sorts of dubious apps that even tamper with system files (such as theming utilities), they somehow have a problem with third-party Start Menu alternatives, even the free ones. Talk about hypocrisy. (I'm not talking about enterprise customers here BTW.)

If I must buy 9 to get it then I must. It's not that I miss the start menu at all - quite fine without it. It's just that the newer one looks nice and all what with the live tiles and the windowed modern apps. Very nice. :)

ZDNET: But you're a big advocate for Microsoft developers. Many of them hate Nokia X because it is Android and sends mixed messages about Microsoft's commitment to the Windows Phone OS.

MYERSON: I think that the thing to focus (on) is they are Microsoft customers of our apps and services. And we will win them back to Windows.

No Terry, I don't think you will. You'll lose them to Android. And if you ever allow Android apps to run on Windows or Windows Phone, you can kiss the Windows app ecosystem goodbye.

ZombieFly said,
you are aware of bluestacks, right?
Gasp, never knew it was an official MS product!

In all seriousness though, there is a huge difference between official out-of-the-box vs third-party support. Also if I'm not mistaken there is no equivalent Android emulator for WP, right? That's the platform that has a chance to take off and if they enable native Android app support it will kill off all developer interest.

Edited by Romero, Apr 10 2014, 6:55pm :

Its going to be during the holidays or before the holidays. They really should get this out ASAP because this OS has built a bad rep, by putting it out sooner there is time to build up the hype so that they will get better holiday sales than what they previously would have gotten.

Microsoft: 'We're just not ready yet' with new Start menu

Basically meaning, yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to wait for Windows 9.

Star-Pirate said,
Microsoft: 'We're just not ready yet' with new Start menu

Basically meaning, yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to wait for Windows 9.

Basically meaning, yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to BUY Windows 9.

Sad, but probably true. Had to buy Win7 to get out of the trouble lots had with Vista. MS screws up, fixes the issue, but users still have to pay for the fix.

Brony said,
Basically meaning, yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to BUY Windows 9.
At this point this is pure FUD. They said it'll be available as an update for Win8.1, so unless we hear something to the contrary I bet it will be free.

techbeck said,
Had to buy Win7 to get out of the trouble lots had with Vista.
Wrong. No-one had to buy Win7 to fix Vista. Proper hardware, drivers and SP1 did that just fine.

[quote=Romero said,]At this point this is pure FUD. They said it'll be available as an update for Win8.1, so unless we hear something to the contrary I bet it will be free.
[quote]

Not exactly: what Myerson said was that a coming update to Windows 8.1 would include the new Start menu, as an option, which does not necessary mean that will arrive as an update of W8. It might or it might not.
Furthermore the same thing has been reiterated in a conversation with MJF:

"Myerson, in a follow-up blog post, said he was describing futures that would be in "the next iteration of Windows." Again, that's intentionally vague, and could mean either a second Windows 8.1 update or Windows 9/Threshold."

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft...apps-to-windows-7000027988/

Romero said,

Wrong. No-one had to buy Win7 to fix Vista. Proper hardware, drivers and SP1 did that just fine.

Was not just driver related. Vista needed better hardware to run properly. Software compatibility issues, and a few others. SP1 installed addressed certain issues lots were experiencing...not all.

Cosmocronos said,
Not exactly: what Myerson said was that a coming update to Windows 8.1 would include the new Start menu, as an option, which does not necessary mean that will arrive as an update of W8. It might or it might not.
The FUD part was referring to the supposed "fact" that "you will have to BUY Windows 9" to get the Start Menu. Is there any proof of this, from MJF or anyone else?

techbeck said,
Was not just driver related. Vista needed better hardware to run properly. Software compatibility issues, and a few others. SP1 installed addressed certain issues lots were experiencing...not all.
I said proper hardware, didn't I? Fact remains your comment that Win7 had to be bought to fix Vista was an exaggeration when SP1 on proper hardware with better drivers by that time did the trick for most people. Certainly I didn't have any problems after SP1 and those few that did had SP2 (which also was released before Win7) and the Platform Update (released a bare 5 days after Win7 GA) to address their woes.

Edited by Romero, Apr 10 2014, 9:47pm :

Again, SP1 didnt resolve/fix a lot of issues. Win7 did.

Anyway, my point was that MS screws up OS all the time and then the consumers have to pay for it. Either financially, or with all the frustrations. Hopefully now with new direction, things will be better.

Can you refresh my memory about the "lots of issues" you faced with Vista even with SP1, SP2 and the Platform Update installed, even the last of which you'd have practically had before a copy of Win7?

Many people still had driver related issues, issues with needing to buy/purchase new hardware for things to run properly even after the updates. All those PCs that were labed Vista Capable and then later turned out it was far from capable. However, when Windows 7 came out, everything ran so much better/quicker on the same machine that was labeled Vista Capable. BSODs, and just overall sluggishness of the OS unless you had the hardware to support it.

I never had much problems since I always overkill the hardware in my systems. So I had more than enough to make things run smoothly. But lots of friends/family did. And performance/stablility was night/day coming from Vista to Win7.

Visa Capable was a fiasco and we all know it, but I have talked about the need for proper hardware multiple times already. I would wager that all those who had lots of problems with Vista and then upgraded their hardware and OS at the same time misattributed all the improvements solely to Win7. It was the better hardware and better drivers that did the trick for them, and if they'd had the same (better hardware and drivers) and stuck with Vista past SP1 they'd have hardly considered Win7 as great an improvement by the time it was released. Honestly, by the time SP2 and then the Platform Update came out, Win7 was a marginal improvement at best, just a little more polished version of what Vista had already long become by then. I have literally seen no-one for whom performance and stability improved by leaps and bounds on the same hardware with same drivers when installing Win7 instead of Vista post SP2 or the PU.

Romero said,
The FUD part was referring to the supposed "fact" that "you will have to BUY Windows 9" to get the Start Menu. Is there any proof of this, from MJF or anyone else?

I said proper hardware, didn't I? Fact remains your comment that Win7 had to be bought to fix Vista was an exaggeration when SP1 on proper hardware with better drivers by that time did the trick for most people. Certainly I didn't have any problems after SP1 and those few that did had SP2 (which also was released before Win7) and the Platform Update (released a bare 5 days after Win7 GA) to address their woes.

Nobody ,at least nobody here, knows if it will come as an update to the current version of Windows or the next; if the former it could be free because I do not think MS will offer W8 Second Edition, if the latter it will not be free. Furthermore he stated his opinion as well as you did. What makes his one FUD?

Cosmocronos said,
Furthermore he stated his opinion as well as you stated yours. What makes his one FUD?
To me stating "yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to BUY Windows 9" sounds far more assertive than mere opinion. Yes we do not know whether the Start Menu will come with Win8.1 Update 2 or 9, or whether we'll need to buy the "next update" that'll contain it or not, but asserting that we "will" is definitely spreading FUD. Let us know more before commenting one way or the other, instead of pretending to know all about what Microsoft is planning to do and speaking on their behalf.

Edited by Romero, Apr 10 2014, 10:23pm :

Romero said,
To me stating "yes we will give you back a proper start menu... but you will have to BUY Windows 9" sounds far more assertive than mere opinion. Yes we do not know whether the Start Menu will come with Win8.1 Update 2 or 9, or whether we'll need to buy the "next update" that'll contain it or not, but asserting that we "will" is definitely spreading FUD. Let us know more before commenting one way or the other, instead of pretending to know all about what Microsoft is planning to do and speaking on their behalf.

IMO it is as assertive as saying "unless we hear something to the contrary I bet it will be free." but this is semantic analysis which is subjective as well. I would have not used, as he did, "Will" but "Shall" for example.

Cosmocronos said,
IMO it is as assertive as saying "unless we hear something to the contrary I bet it will be free."
Ah, but you did not quote my full sentence, which was "They said it'll be available as an update for Win8.1, so unless we hear something to the contrary I bet it will be free." I stand by this assertion that if it comes as another mere update for Win8.1 it will be free, because there's NO way they'll charge for Win8.1 Update 2.

Cosmocronos said,
I would have not used, as he did, "Will" but "Shall" for example.
Meh. "Basically meaning, yes we shall give you back a proper start menu... but you shall have to BUY Windows 9" makes no difference semantically as far as I can see, and that "basically meaning" is him trying to put words in their mouth and articulating something he knows nothing at all about which is why I called it FUD.

I vote we all stop speculating uselessly about whether we'll have to pay for the "privilege" of using the Start Menu again or not. Let it come when it does, and then we can decide what we want to do about it. Sound good?

Romero said,

I vote we all stop speculating uselessly about whether we'll have to pay for the "privilege" of using the Start Menu again or not. Let it come when it does, and then we can decide what we want to do about it. Sound good?

TBH I have no interest whatsoever for the Start menu; granted, if MS pull out of the hat something that I will find useful and appealing.... I will enable it for sure.

I would rather see MS offering in October a Developer Preview of W9; wishful thinking of course.

I think they might have made a mistake by showing the Start Menu and whetting people's appetites, especially if it'll take months to arrive with Update 2 or up to a year or more with Win9.

Dev Preview of Win9 in Oct? I doubt it too, and of course especially not if Win8.1 U2 is in the works.

Romero said,
I think they might have made a mistake by showing the Start Menu and whetting people's appetites, especially if it'll take months to arrive with Update 2 or up to a year or more with Win9.

Dev Preview of Win9 in Oct? I doubt it too, and of course especially not if Win8.1 U2 is in the works.


Well, if the rumors that W9 will arrive in mid 2015 a DP in October/November would be in the right time frame; U2 is a different matter than DP: the former is aimed at the whole spectrum of existing users, the latter to a much smaller audience: people like us hanging on sites like Neowin, developers, IT managers etc.

Cosmocronos said,
Well, if the rumors that W9 will arrive in mid 2015 a DP in October/November would be in the right time frame
Thurrott said Win9 is due to ship in April 2015 but somehow that timeline looks really rushed to me. If it does RTM by April next year then I don't expect all that much from it and that would be a shame.

Cosmocronos said,
U2 is a different matter than DP: the former is aimed at the whole spectrum of existing users, the latter to a much smaller audience: people like us hanging on sites like Neowin, developers, IT managers etc.
Of course, but what I meant was they'll not be able to devote all their attention to Win9 if U2 is in the works.

Microsoft, under the Steven Sinofsky reign, was a bit more secretive about the future plans of Windows

Really? I know it's been said Sikorsky was kinda a douchebag but we know for a fact the guy was blogging the Windows 8 progress all along! Did I dream about that?

PotatoAlchemist said,
Bye-bye third party replacements, in which case finally the upcoming update will get a proper one implemented. Puts the rest to shame.

or maybe the new start menu isn't as good as the alternatives.

Praetor said,

or maybe the new start menu isn't as good as the alternatives.

Well, they are asking for it for far too much, apparently more than other solutions. You see more of "Give me Start Menu back on Windows 8/9" rather than "Give me Start8, StartIsBack, [insert Start Menu replicator here]".

Rather have them implement a good/correct navigation system this time than release something that is half assed and has issues. The Start Screen was not the correct solution either regardless of those who like it. If it was, MS wouldnt be producing a new Start Menu. Enough people didnt like it to get MS attention. If there were not a lot of complains on the mess which is the Start Screen, then MS would be looking at a new Menu.

And mess of a Start Screen is how it is organized. You get the whole app list and it is hard to tell where the app tile is. You have App headings which are the same font and style of text as the rest. If the headings stood out more, then it would be so much of a problem.

Put it in Windows-9! Oh, and give users the choice of UI. You've butchered up Windows-8 enough tacky add-ons in a vain attempt to make it mouse/keyboard friendly.

warwagon said,
Take your time, MS. Lot of people want the start menu back, so work slow and get it right the first time.

And make it optional, so both camps will be happy. (Yeah, right!)

DConnell said,

And make it optional, so both camps will be happy. (Yeah, right!)


I'll bet anything that when it's released, nearly all the people moaning they don't want the start menu back will use it and enjoy it, though they'll still probably try to keep up their fake-hate for it online.

In my case it will depend entirely on the form it takes. If it's a mini-Start Screen, I'll give it a try. But if it's a return to the textmaze, I don't ever want to see that on my computers again.

DConnell said,

And make it optional, so both camps will be happy. (Yeah, right!)


People want EVERYTHING to be optional; what the frack. No wonder Windows becomes so bloated. If the product doesn't fit you; don't use it; don't complain and use something else.

DConnell said,
Take your time, MS. Some of us don't want the Start Menu back.

Do not enable it... Options are the best way to satisfy the widest range of customers.

I just don't want the new menu to be the only choice available to us. I don't want it back at all, personally, but I'm not the only customer MS has.

Jarrichvdv said,
People want EVERYTHING to be optional; what the frack. No wonder Windows becomes so bloated. If the product doesn't fit you; don't use it; don't complain and use something else.
This kind of intolerant attitude isn't useful. I agree that everything can't be made optional, but when it comes to something as divisive as the Start Menu vs. Screen I don't want Microsoft to make the mistake of lurching to the other end and removing the option of the latter, be it on all or even some devices. No matter if I'm using a PC or a tablet I want the choice of both.

Romero said,
This kind of intolerant attitude isn't useful. I agree that everything can't be made optional, but when it comes to something as divisive as the Start Menu vs. Screen I don't want Microsoft to make the mistake of lurching to the other end and removing the option of the latter, be it on all or even some devices. No matter if I'm using a PC or a tablet I want the choice of both.

Exactly!

Cosmocronos said,
.... Options are the best way to satisfy the widest range of customers.

Default has become my favorite option. Infinite customizability just for its own sake is really self defeating. Then you move to another system, say at work where you're locked down by GP and you have no choice but to develop different methods of working.

n_K said,

I'll bet anything that when it's released, nearly all the people moaning they don't want the start menu back will use it and enjoy it, though they'll still probably try to keep up their fake-hate for it online.

Strange, why pretend to like or not like something. I have no problem if Microsoft returns the start menu, as long as it is user configurable.

No auto sensing please either, but user configurable. I want the start screen on my Desktop, my Laptop, my tablet and my phone. I want the start menu on nothing I need to operate.

Not the first time it's been said I'm sure but Win 9 needs two versions - Desktop then tablet/mobile version. Stop mixing it up. Apple doesn't & I'm a MS fan!

All Windows needs to do is be smart enough to enable the “modern start menu” by default on desktop computers once released, and disable the hot corners. Then offer the modern interface by default on tablets, of course allowing users so switch the default if they desire.

One OS can serve both types of devices, however it should be able to adapt to the device its been used on.

InsaneNutter said,
All Windows needs to do is be smart enough to enable the “modern start menu” by default on desktop computers once released, and disable the hot corners. Then offer the modern interface by default on tablets, of course allowing users so switch the default if they desire.

One OS can serve both types of devices, however it should be able to adapt to the device its been used on.

Wholeheartedly agree. I absolutely do NOT want Windows to be split and go down the Apple route.

InsaneNutter said,
....

Your default suggestion would irritate me to no end.

As someone who has W8.1 on desktop and tablet, I want a consistent experience across both which is what I have today.

deadonthefloor said,

Your default suggestion would irritate me to no end.

As someone who has W8.1 on desktop and tablet, I want a consistent experience across both which is what I have today.

Which is why I mentioned users should be given the choice to change the behaviour if desired.

It's personal preference at the end of the day, which is why I believe users should have a choice and not simply forced to use on or the other.

InsaneNutter said,

Which is why I mentioned users should be given the choice to change the behaviour if desired.

It's personal preference at the end of the day, which is why I believe users should have a choice and not simply forced to use on or the other.

But that choice is possible. When I use Windows on a tablet, I use almost exclusively WinRT apps. When I use Windows 8.1 on a desktop or regular laptop, I use almost exclusively desktop applications.

I also mix and match meaning I would use WinRT apps on the desktop, and I also use desktop (or win32) apps on my tablet.

I love this flexibility, coupled with a consistent interface, and a consistent start screen experience, which also mimics the one I have on my Windows phone.

Please please Microsoft do not consider going Apple and have to completely different experiences, that simply doesn't make any sense.

sjaak327 said,
But that choice is possible. When I use Windows on a tablet, I use almost exclusively WinRT apps. When I use Windows 8.1 on a desktop or regular laptop, I use almost exclusively desktop applications.
The choice he was referring to was between the Start Screen and Menu, which is currently not possible but which we advocate.

sjaak327 said,
Please please Microsoft do not consider going Apple and have to completely different experiences, that simply doesn't make any sense.
Agree.

Midnight Mick said,
Not the first time it's been said I'm sure but Win 9 needs two versions - Desktop then tablet/mobile version. Stop mixing it up. Apple doesn't & I'm a MS fan!

The future of Windows is Universal Metro Applications.

The more I use Windows 8.1, the more I like it (with Start8 though, the Start Screen isn't for me, I tried, I just don't like it). The addition of the Start Menu will probably make of Windows 8.1 the best OS Microsoft has released since Windows exists (But what a rough start it had! Props to Microsoft for their good work)

I expect Windows 9 to be awesome from day 1. There's a pattern... Vista was broken, they fixed it and made it a good OS. Windows 7 was excellent from day 1. Windows 8 was broken for many users, and they managed to fix it with Windows 8.1. Windows 9 will be what Windows 7 was, but better

Edited by myxomatosis, Apr 10 2014, 2:07pm :

I agree with you mostly, but being a nerd who is really into details I am always quick to point out that Vista was in no way broken. UAT was a little annoying, but easily turned off, other than that, the only issues with Vista where 3rd party support, something MS had no control over. People often act like SP1 somehow fixed Vista, the truth is that it just took about that long for devices and applications to become fully compatible.

I will say that there wasn't much right with Vista. Most changes happened under the covers, so for paying the price of a rocky start with lots of compatibility issues, about all you got was XP with a new skin.

sphbecker said,
UAT was a little annoying, but easily turned off, other than that, the only issues with Vista where 3rd party support, something MS had no control over. People often act like SP1 somehow fixed Vista, the truth is that it just took about that long for devices and applications to become fully compatible.
UAC, not UAT. And SP1 did fix important issues in Vista, none more so than the file copy problem. That said Vista SP1 was nice and I bet most people who keep saying it was a useless OS never even used it after SP1.

Romero said,
That said Vista SP1 was nice and I bet most people who keep saying it was a useless OS never even used it after SP1.

Quoted for truth

Just GOD DAMN restore the AEROGLASS for GODSAKE! Is it so freaking hard to provide an option and the people who decided to remove it from the final built is nothing more but a SOB!

Master of Earth said,
Just GOD DAMN restore the AEROGLASS for GODSAKE! Is it so freaking hard to provide an option and the people who decided to remove it from the final built is nothing more but a SOB!

I agree...or at least make it easier to read text on dark themed borders.

It is just a UI, it really isn't that big of a deal. I thought I would hate Windows 8 when I started forcing myself to use it. There are a few things I think are dumb, like finding the Shutdown, but all in all, I really can't complain.

I do think the new hybrid start menu is a step in the right direction, I am not a big fan of the current start screen, but as someone who uses mostly keyboard hotkeys, I almost never interact with it, other than seeing it flash up quickly as I press the exact same hotkeys that worked for Windows 7 and XP.

It is just one symptom of a company apparently being run by 20s something people with little or no concept or appreciation of how those of us 30 and older work.

testman said,
How about you calm down? It's not a life-or-death feature.

I just can't! Because it's such a small little things that make the overall appearance of windows feel clean and yummy yet they unable to give you the option to enable it. It's almost 1Y+ and 8.1 update absolutely didn't take it seriously enough to re implement. We have to rely on third party and it's not always the best solution.

Master of Earth said,
Just GOD DAMN restore the AEROGLASS for GODSAKE! Is it so freaking hard to provide an option and the people who decided to remove it from the final built is nothing more but a SOB!

I think the dynamic color scheme of window borders is horribly annoying. Instead of picking the most soothing light tone color of the wallpaper, it will take the most dark and gaudy color and my windows look like vomit.
For example, if I have a nice peaceful beach scene with a tiny dark red umbrella, then all my windows will be that same dark red.

I select the standard light blue color and move on. But the color picking algorithm needs work.

If only... the new themes are hideous and eventually the theming engine will change enough to render the RP theme useless

Hello,

Aero Glass is either not coming back at all or at least any time soon.

If you read between the lines of everything Microsoft has done with Aero Glass since Windows Vista, it seems pretty apparent that the reason it was dropped from Windows 8 had less to do with wanting to present a 'clean' experience, and more to do with getting acceptable battery life out of that first generation of ARM core Windows RT devices that Asus, Dell, Lenovo, Nokia, Samsung et al introduced.

If you will recall, when Vista was introduced, the Aero Glass functionality consumed a lot of GPU cycles, which lead to increased heat and shortened battery life, especially on lower-end notebooks with embedded IGPs. That is why a lot of those units refused to run Aero Glass, at least, not without some tweaking.

The tablet manufacturers have to have been in the same position. Enabling Aero Glass on Windows RT would have meant giving the tablets a battery life much less than the competition (which at the time was the Apple iPad, plus the occasional Android tablet).

I think that would have been pretty much unthinkable for Microsoft to have tablets with low battery life out there, so Aero Glass was cut as a result. If Microsoft had disabled it on just Windows RT (ARM) and not Windows 8 (x86-64), there probably would have been all sorts of cries about how how Windows RT devices were "second class citizens, not good enough to run Windows 8's graphics, etc." But cutting it from both ARM and x86-64 platforms allowed Microsoft to publicly give a marketing answer to why it was removed, e.g., "it looked old and dated" (even if no one had said this about Aero Glass before).

At least, that's my own personal theory about what happened... I don't have any outside information to actually corroborate any of this, but when you think about what Microsoft was trying to accomplish them, which was basically create an "iPad killer" to get all the analysts and shareholders off of their back, it makes sense.

In order for Aero Glass to re-appear, graphics core manufacturers have got to develop designs that can handle all those visual effects while just sipping a trickle of power all day. When those devices come out, Microsoft can then "add" Aero Glass back into the operating system, secure that they won't take a hit on battery/all day computing benchmarks from people reviewing Windows RT tablets (or whatever they are called by then). Who knows? They may even allow it to be enabled on "older" (e.g., today's current) devices, although it will probably hurt your battery run-time... in which case you'll want to buy one of those newer devices in order to take advantage of that ultra-low-power graphics core.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Master of Earth said,
Just GOD DAMN restore the AEROGLASS for GODSAKE! Is it so freaking hard to provide an option and the people who decided to remove it from the final built is nothing more but a SOB!

goretsky said,
Hello,
...

Very true, but an option to let users, that want it, enable it (perhaps with a notice that it consumes more battery power), wouldn't hurt anyone and MS could leave it disabled by default if they wanted to.

Edited by Thief000, Apr 11 2014, 7:58am :

@+goretsky, After 7 years of using aero glass and it's kinda implausible to believe that the manufactures haven't able to seek a way address those problem but regardless of that, Intel "Haswell" proven to dramatically extend the usage of battery longevity like watching trilogy iron man without worrying inadequate battery life. As a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with the concern of running out of battery by using aero glass.

Even iOS 7 adopted some elements of translucency that makes the overall interface feel more alive and enjoyable that windows 8 should preserve it but what do we have now? A boring and lifeless of window borders. The A7 is a desktop class 64 bit architecture CPU and PowerVR GPU is more capable than enough to handle it and running perhaps twice the resolution of most laptops such as Macbook Air that's widely praise for the battery performance.

Nvidia 600 series Kepler also done a phenomenal task of improving the battery and even better for mobile devices. All of the technology advancement has made during the 7 years is without a doubt the best opportunity for AEROGLASS to take it into a whole new level and ironically it water down by one of the microsoft SOB.

One last thing, did you realize that even iOS or Android use dynamic wallpapers which consumes even more power but still able to have standby time of approximately a month. To put that into perspective, AeroGlass isn't even remotely close to that level of shortening the battery life.

Edited by Master of Earth, Apr 11 2014, 7:14am :

Hello,

Of the manufacturers making silicon (or the IP for the cores) of the ARM video subsystems used by Windows RT, the only one with extensive Windows x86 experience at the time was nVidia. Qualcomm and TI might have had some experience in the Windows CE/Mobile/Phone space, but I suspect a lot of that doesn't necessarily translate to expertise on such a new operating system.

Remember, assuming a two-year lead in developing the OS, Windows RT was just getting underway in 2010, so applying what we know today about things like the current state of Intel's Haswell and Bay Trail isn't reasonable. Intel's turned around its Atom line since then, but I have to wonder if Microsoft would have even gone down the ARM path if those were available earlier.

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that the effects behind Aero Glass are maths-intensive. When you occlude an item on the desktop with an Aero Glass composited window, you actually see a blurred version of what's really behind it--you may even be able to make out elements like text.
The Android and iOS, platforms have the benefit of years of developing hardware and software that sip power for years now. Android OS has been shipping for five or six years now and and Apple a year longer. I suspect the HTC Dream and original iPhone would handle the dynamic wallpaper of today with similar battery life as the first-generation Windows RT devices would handle Aero Glass, which is to say, poorly.

As another example, if you ran Vista at RTM with Aero Glass enabled on a video card that was more than a year old, you may have gotten poor battery life (laptop) and/or a noisy fan as the GPU tried to keep up with handling the eye candy.

I am hoping that Microsoft will Windows RT going over the next several years and we'll see Aero Glass-like effects return. I'm less sure if ARM or Atom is going to be the future of Windows RT, but hopefully there's room for both.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

CJEric said,

I hope not. :D

LOL yeah I'm still watching recorded sessions but there were HUGE announcements during BUILD - Start Menu was just... cool I guess?

Obry said,

LOL yeah I'm still watching recorded sessions but there were HUGE announcements during BUILD - Start Menu was just... cool I guess?

More of those "move along, there's nothing to see here" kind of instance. :p Most of the BUILD announcements were into certain progress, but not the Start Menu. Unless it's going to be a mini-Start Screen, then that'd be somewhat new.

link6155 said,
They said that it will be available for all Windows 8.1 users in a later update.

Yeah, Microsoft are probably trying to find a way to add adverts to the start menu in this 'free' update for Windows 8.1 users. Windows 9 users will have ad-free start menu.

It's be funny if I wasn't even joking.

sagum said,
Yeah, Microsoft are probably trying to find a way to add adverts to the start menu in this 'free' update for Windows 8.1 users. Windows 9 users will have ad-free start menu.

It's be funny if I wasn't even joking.

[Citation needed]... serious.

Where are ads ANYWHERE in windows other than maybe the store or apps inside the store?

When has MS added something "With ads", then removed ads in Windows+1?

I've seen some stupid decisions from MS... but Ads in the start menu? You're seriously reaching into the fairy and unicorn story land on that one. I'm calling BS.

sagum said,

Yeah, Microsoft are probably trying to find a way to add adverts to the start menu in this 'free' update for Windows 8.1 users. Windows 9 users will have ad-free start menu.

It's be funny if I wasn't even joking.

Lame comment is lame. Stop pulling crap out of thin air to satisfy your craving for BS.

wernercd said,

[Citation needed]... serious.

Where are ads ANYWHERE in windows other than maybe the store or apps inside the store?

When has MS added something "With ads", then removed ads in Windows+1?

I've seen some stupid decisions from MS... but Ads in the start menu? You're seriously reaching into the fairy and unicorn story land on that one. I'm calling BS.

One of the things I *hate* about Windows 8 is that some of the *built in apps* have adverts! Such as the Weather app and the Minesweep game :( It annoys me because these are things *included with the OS that I paid for*. Sorry but these are things included with the product and should not have any ads in them. How about if they stick an advert into IE on the toolbar? Or Windows Mail? I refuse to use these applications because of these ads.

ditoax said,

Minesweep game :( It annoys me because these are things *included with the OS that I paid for*.

Since when is Minesweeper included in Windows 8?

MFH said,

Since when is Minesweeper included in Windows 8?

My apologies. I was referring to the Minesweeper game Microsoft have in the Windows Store. Microsoft decided that desktop users no longer need any games included.

The good thing about living in Norway is that no one is buying adspace from Microsoft here so it's a completely adfree experience ^^

Northgrove said,
So... Windows 9.

Of course Sinosfky wanted to keep his plans secret. Polishing a turd is hard work, he'd want to delay that as long as possible!

ditoax said,
One of the things I *hate* about Windows 8 is that some of the *built in apps* have adverts! Such as the Weather app and the Minesweep game :( It annoys me because these are things *included with the OS that I paid for*. Sorry but these are things included with the product and should not have any ads in them. How about if they stick an advert into IE on the toolbar? Or Windows Mail? I refuse to use these applications because of these ads.

I'd have to look to know, but I haven't installed a single windows app on 8 and I don't use IE, Windows Mail, Windows Games... I remove all the stock apps and replace them with useful stuff like Chrome, Outlook, steam, etc. As well, I use HOSTS ad blocking so I miss most ads anywhere else.

With all that being said... the App store is still wild west in my books and I wouldn't be surprised to see ads anywhere. I'd be more surprised to see ads in IE.

Ads in apps is still a far step from Ads on the desktop. Ads are in apps everywhere. android, iPhone, bb... why not Windows apps (Ads in MS provided apps would irritate me to no end if I ever used MS apps other than Office)?