Microsoft working to kill Windows 8 Start button hacks

Removing the legacy code from its Windows 8 operating system is something Microsoft is currently working on to prevent third-party developers from releasing modifications and hacks in an attempt to re-enable the Start button and Start Menu in future builds.

Microsoft has recently been "furiously ripping out" legacy code in Windows 8 that lets third-party developers bring back the Start button, Menu and the other parts of the desktop interface according to Windows watcher, Paul Thurrott.

Whilst we are aware that certain UI hacks enabled the Start Button and Menu in the Consumer Preview, Thurrott confirms that they will simply not work on the Release Preview that will be released later today.

Despite a growing debate over the Metro UI not being as intuitive on desktop PCs as it is on tablets, Microsoft doesn't appear to be willing to offer a solution to people who simply prefer the old way of doing things in a desktop environment with its upcoming Windows 8 release.

Microsoft's approach could anger developers and users who prefer the traditional desktop aesthetics over the new full-screen Metro ones, but Microsoft’s main concern is about convincing developers to build Metro-styled applications.

Microsoft already plans on dropping the Aero UI before the RTM builds so there's clearly very little room for any major additional changes before the operating system ships later this year – which means Microsoft will not cave in to the idea of re-incorporating the Start button, Start Menu and parts of the desktop interface.

Source: WinSupersite

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Self-proclaimed MPC World Record Holder is a Fraud

Next Story

Facebook adds admin roles, timed posts to Pages

204 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is the first time I have ever comment in neowin. But I got to say I read all the comments and a lot of them gave me an angry feeling. A lot of people mostly one person in particular assuming that because he/she "enjoys" Windows 8 and his/her family finds better to use then that means that everyone "must" enjoy Windows 8. For me I cannot assume what people want only time will tell. Still it is my opinion that this will be another Windows Vista because killing the start menu is a serious move that will just make it that people wont upgrade or just stick with Windows 7. Seriously lets face it people this is a "touch interface" sure you can use it with the mouse/keyboard but you wont get the same experience. Furthermore I for one sometimes have 10 windows open and quickly like to access a previously used program or just go to my control panel, computer or devices without something clogging up my entire screen just to have access to the previously mention stuff. Also, I dont have use for stocks,weather and mostly every other icon. Anyway I simply wont be upgrading to Windows 7 but simply that's just my opinion and everyone has their choice.

Why all this stubbornness? With Windows 7 they prided about listening to the masses and now they're doing exactly the opposite? C'mon!!!

Why all this stubbornness? With Windows 7 they prided about listening to the masses and now they're doing exactly the opposite? C'mon!!!

R3DL1N3 said,
Most of you people post about how everyone is going to miss the start menu and no one is going to like windows 8.. apparently do not deal with the general public using computers.. [...] So either you people haven't actually used Windows 8 CP or you are just here to troll cause it makes you feel better about yourself.. Maybe you should spend some time actually using the software before running off at the mouth.. [...]

DAOWAce said,
I'd leave a 'lol' comment, but that doesn't seem wise.

Skipped 7 because of UI changes.

Skipping 8 because it's terrible for power users, like everyone's saying.

Sticking with Vista because Microsoft actually left legacy elements in it.

Granted I can just use something like Classic Shell to really put back the old start menu in 7 (and not have it be a hack job like Seven Classic Start which want you to pay for it, to boot!), but that doesn't change all the UI issues I have with it compared to Vista.

One day, I may jump over to 7, if not 9 or 10, but honestly, Microsoft, like many other companies lately, are just losing their focus for what made their services better than the competition.

Here is what is going on in Windows 8:

They are adding this new windows runtime environment platform called metro and immerse. It rides on html5, javascript, and the netfx platform. The goal is to push this for new programs and utilities in an effort to make it so programs for the OS use abstracted api calls and portable code.

They have largely deprecated the desktop but left most of it in for compatibility during this transition to what microsoft believes is the future of computing where the Device is everything and the OS is only used as a way of making a device function.

Here is the kicker though, If they left the desktop side alone and kept it 1:1 with windows 7 the developers and users would not have any reason to embrace the new windows runtime. So they are making modifications and entry points and co-oping many desktop functions to tie or be replaced by the metro system.

Once this becomes commonplace the goal is to eventually drop win32 api and subsystem and nt kernel and replace it with a more secure and controlled underpinning. This can only happen if everything moves to the new windows runtime.

Microsoft is staking it's future and using it's dominant position in the market to do this.

For the next version of windows watch as they gradual (quicker than apple though) replace every aspect of the underlining OS with this new system. My prediction is by the time we get to "Windows" 10 it won't have anything to do with NT or win32 at all.

The general public will accept this for the most part but the power users and administrators who were trained and grew up with the desktop paradigm will have a very hard time to adapt.

People saying that Windows 8 will be the next vista or windows me really don't know what they are talking about. Windows ME was a special case because Codename Neptune (a home version of windows 2000) was cancelled and merged with the next generation microsoft OS to form Whistler which as many may know is Windows XP.

The case with Longhorn and Vista isn't even nearly as simple as the case was for ME. Longhorn was being developed off the xp code base and during the time when 3 major internet worms happened. With part of the windows team being diverted to secure previous operating systems plus a lot of management issues and the simple fact they were trying to tack more and more stuff onto the windows codebase in such a short period of time they had to by the end of 2004 scrap everything and start fresh with a new plan. Vista's problems initially were that the OS was only truly in development from 2005-2006 and because of the delays and reboot of the project the hardware and software developers were left wondering if they should start working on drivers and updates for their products.

These issues obviously were addressed for the most part by Vista SP1 but the damage to the brand was already done.

Windows 8 and the future of the microsoft platform is actually very akin to some of the original concepts for longhorn. Albeit with a modern twist and in the reality of cloud computing and widespread broadband connectivity.

I don't agree with the new vision of computing but I do understand why they are doing what they do. I think it could be approached differently but that is a discussion for a later time.

Peace,

Matt A. Tobin
Commanding Officer
Binary Outcast

Edited by Matt A. Tobin, Jun 1 2012, 4:17pm :

I'd leave a 'lol' comment, but that doesn't seem wise.

Skipped 7 because of UI changes.

Skipping 8 because it's terrible for power users, like everyone's saying.

Sticking with Vista because Microsoft actually left legacy elements in it.

Granted I can just use something like Classic Shell to really put back the old start menu in 7 (and not have it be a hack job like Seven Classic Start which want you to pay for it, to boot!), but that doesn't change all the UI issues I have with it compared to Vista.

One day, I may jump over to 7, if not 9 or 10, but honestly, Microsoft, like many other companies lately, are just losing their focus for what made their services better than the competition.

Most of you people post about how everyone is going to miss the start menu and no one is going to like windows 8.. apparently do not deal with the general public using computers.. I can't tell you how many times I ask someone to click the start menu button and they say what's that.. I say the button with the flag on it in bottom left... etc.. or how many users claim that a piece of software is not installed because there is no icon on the desktop. They have no idea that they can find it on the start menu under all programs. If the icon is not on the desktop it doesn't exist. So for those users the start screen is actually simpler. You guys are looking at this as power users not computer novices. And let me tell you there are way more computer novices then power users.
As for the whole pattern thing.. you guys focused on the wrong thing.. it isn't about a good vs bad release cycle.. MS has been following a trend.. they have been dumbing down the OS for years.. I can't remember how many power features have been replaced with Wizards etc..

I wasn't so keen on the missing start menu button.. but when I got using the CP version.. and customized it the way I wanted it.. I can get WAY more information in a glance.. group the stuff I use most often at the front.. BANG All I do is click my windows Key and click I'm in a new app..
You guys are really missing the boat on this one.. It's way faster than dragging your mouse all the way from the Right to the left.. click start click all programs click accessories... blah blah blah..
When I'm working on the desktop.. I right click where the start button used to be.. and a menu comes up.. with all kinds of useful stuff.. Like command prompt (both regular and admin) Run command, Search command, Windows Explorer... So either you people haven't actually used Windows 8 CP or you are just here to troll cause it makes you feel better about yourself.. Maybe you should spend some time actually using the software before running off at the mouth..

Missing start button.. not a big deal.. I right click instead of left click.. how hard is that pfft..

Just another reason to skip this one like I skipped Vista. Having to swap between the Start Screen and the Desktop to accomplish anything is stupid, having to put up with full screen metro apps is as well. I want the performance enhancements of 8 but not enough to have to put up with the decreased efficiency and stupidity of the new system.

THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE UPDATE FROM BINARY OUTCAST ---

ClassicShell in it's current version does indeed work on Windows 8 Release Candidate (Preview w/e).

No clue how long we will be able to enjoy something that makes Window 8 (not a typo) back into Windows. Only time will tell!

Peace,

Matt A. Tobin
Commanding Officer
Binary Outcast

simplezz said,
It seems like Microsoft has lost the plot lately.

They have forgotten HOW they won the desktop operating system war and because a monopoly with desktop market share.

I haven't tried Windows 8 yet, but I kind of like the new design from what I have seen. I'll have to see if I can get used to it or not.

But you can't really blame them for doing this because they want to make sure Apps are made for the Metro UI. If they didn't you could pretty well bet that few would be made.

I think it looks more organized than the current Windows 7 interface does.

I think the same. Using since the DP and when at first moved to CP i thought i made a big mistake...
A week later i was not able to live without 8. Dont know how used 7 for so long. Hahahaha.
Dont worry, you will adapt to it and in matter of few days.
Microsoft have an AS in it sleeve, and will make everyother player to PLAY HARDER to not to face.
Everyone wins!
Long life 8!!!

iguanas said,

A week later i was not able to live without 8.
Everyone wins!

You are not one of "everyone". You are part of a technically literate group of high end users...or else you wouldn't be here.

"Everyone" is going to absolutely freak out when they try and use Windows 8 on the desktop...and not in a good way. Not at all.

Those who can't adapt will keep 7 or go with something else. I think most people will adapt very quickly and it won't be a huge burden like some are thinking it will be.

hagjohn said,
Those who can't adapt will keep 7 or go with something else. I think most people will adapt very quickly and it won't be a huge burden like some are thinking it will be.

You obviously don't deal with "most people" in the world...

So much hate from people. All they're doing is removing depreciated code. If you want the Start Menu so badly, just wait for RTM, someone will make an app.

I wonder If there will be an option to "Downgrade" any new computer sold with Win 8 to Win7? Returning to XP was a popular option when Vista was released for those who hated that particular P.O.S? & it *might* placate any user/developer who doesn't want to spend the extra upgrading to touch screens when keyboard/mouse combos still make sense.

The main customers (business) are going not to complain and if they do, sod em. Microsoft has lost the plot with 8. If by 9 they don't remember who buys the things they make, I can see an opportunity for the competition, Linux. However, if I ever buy a tablet or phone with Windows 8, I would probably be happy.

NinjaGinger said,
The main customers (business) are going not to complain and if they do, sod em. Microsoft has lost the plot with 8. If by 9 they don't remember who buys the things they make, I can see an opportunity for the competition, Linux. However, if I ever buy a tablet or phone with Windows 8, I would probably be happy.

Businesses aren't going to be running third party hacks anyway.

Dot Matrix said,

Businesses aren't going to be running third party hacks anyway.

Not true. Most major IT corps would have a slipstreamed OS build with approved company applications, group policies, etc. A simple hack to reenable the Start menu would have allowed IT admins to build a "metro-less" boot-to-the-desktop build of Windows 8. That was probably the only way in hell any of the major corporations would have considered a Windows 8 mass migration.

But, according to my conversations with many of them, they have already recommended Windows 8 as a "skip" in this year's plans for next year's budgets.

Windows 8 is becoming the New Coke of operating systems. 8(

If ripping out the code improves Windows 8's efficiency as a whole than go for it, but if you're ripping it out purely to spite people who want to install a Start Menu, with no benefit, thats just petty.

McKay said,
If ripping out the code improves Windows 8's efficiency as a whole than go for it, but if you're ripping it out purely to spite people who want to install a Start Menu, with no benefit, thats just petty.

By that argument Microsoft might as well rip the Desktop App out....

McKay said,
If ripping out the code improves Windows 8's efficiency as a whole than go for it, but if you're ripping it out purely to spite people who want to install a Start Menu, with no benefit, thats just petty.

In what reality do you live, where you think massive decisions in a global company would be based on 'spite'?

Seriously there are many reasons that I know of for removing the start menu, I agree with most and am on the fence with others but the end result is its gone and it bothers me not one little bit.

I've been using W8 CP on my laptop for a few months now and love it, I do not miss the start menu and I have a very varied workload (web dev, CRM Customisations/management, IT Support, document creation (guides and marketing bits etc.)

The main apps I's using are as follows:

visual studio
sharepoint designer
browser (IE10) for CRM work
Word
Excel
Visio
Filezilla
one note
outlook

I open them all from taskbar but am always nipping into the start screen for things like cmd prompt, notepad, calc etc. This feels 100% natural now, to the point where I went into the office on Monday and used my W7 box and that felt odd - to HAVE a start menu.

duddit2 said,

I didnt say the Start Menu was better, but this article makes it looks like Microsoft are going out of their way to disable coding for the sole reason of making it harder for people to install a 3rd-part Start Menu.

I'm deeply confused as to how you got that from my post.

This is just pure neowin BS! Extracting legacy code is a good thing, This news post however has created a tonne of BS emphasizing on the start menu. Attention seeking at it's finest.

Regardless of the need or lack thereof for the Start Menu, this behavior is disturbing. Windows is so pervasive, and important to the nations productivity, perhaps MS should no longer be able to solely control it.

MorganX said,
Regardless of the need or lack thereof for the Start Menu, this behavior is disturbing. Windows is so pervasive, and important to the nations productivity, perhaps MS should no longer be able to solely control it.

What?

The Laughing Man said,
Why fix it, if it aint broke.
We live in a weird world people prefer a full-screen Start Screen to launch apps against the simple Start Menu. it's not that people don't like change it's just it's a bad change. The start menu lasted so long because it was just such a good idea. To me I don't understand why people would even be bitching to remove it why do you like having to constantly go back and forward doing things on Windows 8 when on Windows 7 everything was just there in 1 screen.

RasterMan said,
I like the removing of legacy code

So this is not an OS built from the ground up then?

It's like an OS built from or alongside 7, which then got new libraries and kernels and then finally got the 7 ripped out off it... That's the way i see it. Not sure how good that is.. but I think they did it to make the previews a little easier to take in.

Each successive generation of Windows builds on the previous code base - there are literally millions of man hours invested in building such a complex system. I would guess that excluding the totally new components around WinRT and Metro (which even then will probably borrow from existing code like the .NET platform and Silverlight) the actual core code base of is 95%+ identical to 7 (and Vista).

Basically Windows 8 is the third release of Windows NT 6.x, the first version of which was Vista. Before that there was 5.x which was 2000, XP and Server 2003 and before that you can trace the heritage of Windows in its current NT form all the way back to a Microsoft research project in the early 90s for a CPU called the N-Ten. It also has a lot of stuff that was part of Windows 95 (Win32) that was ported to NT in NT 4.

wahoospa said,
Microsoft must not be taking sales seriously any more.

Ironically, when the 95% of the general computing users look to upgrade their computers (business and home), they are going to find Apple provides a more familiar windowing user experience.

The only way Microsoft could have handed Apple a bigger boon to desktop sales would be to have raised Steve Jobs from the dead...and even he didn't really do a good job at selling OS X. 8P

Just another indication of MS consciously deciding to ignore the business/enterprise marketplace and go head-to-head against Apple for the touchy-feely consumer marketplace. Maybe MS needs to get badly burned before learning that the business/enterprise marketplace, while maybe not very profitable on each unit does add up over millions of units.

The article said "furiously ripping out legacy code"... for a start button? What about other legacy things? They're still there.

I think the desktop needs to go for sure. (No more desktop, task bar and icons.) It's redundant and useless to be able to launch programs from both start screen and desktop. A special "environment" should be created within Metro to display legacy programs that used to launch in the desktop (file explorer, full screen games like crysis, editors like photoshop, installers etc..) It feels like you're running two operating systems at the same time with metro and desktop. If MS wants people to get used to metro (which it obviously is trying to do by killing the start menu), then it might was well kill the desktop.

patseguin said,
I can't believe how much news coverage a simple button gets.

I think it's more about the aesthetic quality and user needs of Windows 8 and how Microsoft forcefully wants Windows 8 to be a completely different experience. That isn't completely bad - many developers do it, whether it is right or wrong is what's being discussed in the comments, I guess. ..

patseguin said,
I can't believe how much news coverage a simple button gets.

It not just about a simple button, but the business philosophy behind it--anti business/enterprise.

My prediction is this, the backlash from the lack of the startmenu will be so great that many simply wont upgrade. I predict an early Windows 8 SP1 that will return the start menu. Personally I see this whole thing as a pathetic attempt to try to gain more of the market share on the phone area but their phone OS sucks so this is just going to bite them in the butt significantly worse than vista did. An early SP will be the only way they can fix this. Either way, someone will create a start menu which will get around this. Its even stupid that they made this change with the server version as well.

It would be nice if it could even happen with the RTM. Yeah, I really can't believe they're using the same stupid Start screen for the Server version. I guess this is why they're really pushing the stripped down Server Core versions with no real GUI. But the Start screen and big stupid Tiles for a server OS? What are we, all retarded 13 year olds?

Foub said,
Looks like I'm sticking with 7 now, or maybe move back to Linux. 8 is ugly.

You, and I'm sure millions of other consumers and business who have better things to do than totally reconfigure their way of working so they can use touch-screens.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

Of course, that doesn't mean you should ignore your customers. But for some people, change of any kind is something they fight every inch of the way. But the simple fact is that change breeds innovation and if you are a tech/software company not innovating, you die.

I'm not initially thrilled about the idea of no Start button/menu, but I'm not afraid of trying it and giving it a chance. In two years it is very likely that most of the loudest complaining will wonder how they could ever have done it any other way than the new way.

when microsoft or apple does something you dont like you have two choices:
* take it
* leave it
when your favourite linux distro does something you dont like you have 3 options:
* take it
* leave it
* fork it

enough people get together who dont like the changes they can merge in changes they do like while gutting ones they dont like and put it all into a new distro (for example as trinity did with KDE 3.5 due to upsetting changes in KDE 4.0)

tuseroni said,
when microsoft or apple does something you dont like you have two choices:
* take it
* leave it
when your favourite linux distro does something you dont like you have 3 options:
* take it
* leave it
* fork it

enough people get together who dont like the changes they can merge in changes they do like while gutting ones they dont like and put it all into a new distro (for example as trinity did with KDE 3.5 due to upsetting changes in KDE 4.0)


Whilst true, I think it's also hurting Linux...

Anyhow, this move by MS is ridonculous.
It's like they WANT to crash and burn. Oh well...

GS:mac

tuseroni said,
when microsoft or apple does something you dont like you have two choices:
* take it
* leave it
when your favourite linux distro does something you dont like you have 3 options:
* take it
* leave it
* fork it

MATE is a good example of that. That's what I love about GNU/Linux. There's something for everybody.

So did MS intentionally remove the legacy code to disable mods, or are they removing the legacy code to clean up the OS and make it lighter?

DClark said,
So did MS intentionally remove the legacy code to disable mods, or are they removing the legacy code to clean up the OS and make it lighter?

This is unknown, but reading the comments you wouldn't think that

DClark said,
So did MS intentionally remove the legacy code to disable mods, or are they removing the legacy code to clean up the OS and make it lighter?

I am pretty sure they did it to try to force the phone OS on everyone. Its going to hurt them in the long run.

Gotenks98 said,

I am pretty sure they did it to try to force the phone OS on everyone. Its going to hurt them in the long run.

Quiet possibly the stupidest thing that you've said so far in this thread...and that's saying a lot.

Gotenks98 said,

I am pretty sure they did it to try to force the phone OS on everyone. Its going to hurt them in the long run.

+1 on the moronic comment scale, well done...

I don't see the point. One way or another if some people are determined enough, they'll bring it back. Doesn't mean they'll infect everybody's computer to make it magically appear. Microsoft shouldn't really panic...

Is it me, or does anyone else find this article a little alarmist? If they're planning to remove the start menu then surely they'll want to remove the code behind it to make sure Windows doesn't contain any bloat. As Aethec, pointed out.

Aethec said,
Microsoft keeps the Start Button code? Windows is bloated!
Microsoft removes the Start Button code? They're offending developers!

Surely in order for a third-party to add a start button, all it will mean is that they'll have to code one from scratch rather than using Windows code. The only version that I can think of which will not be able to be edited deeply would be WindowsRT which is mainly for tablet devices. I don't think people want a start button on a tablet device, and the fact that the desktop is even on that version puzzles me.

Microsoft has been bashed in the past for keeping legacy support. As soon as Microsoft decides to remove some legacy components, **** starts to hit the fan. A good example is a look at Vista. Now Vista itself wasn't all that bad. Most of the things that gave it a bad rep was the fact that it was being installed on devices which just didn't have the horsepower to run it, or the drivers for it were lazily constructed. The driver issue was mainly down to the fact that Vista changed the core driver model, and hardware manufacturers were being lazy. After all the security holes and bugs were fixed up and driver support for Vista became more mature. Vista was not all that bad of an OS. But the name was tarnished by its battle scars.

And then along came Win7, Vista re branded addition. But even then, there was also a bunch of naysayers complaining how the "super bar" was unproductive, unintuitive, copying Mac, blah blah blah. There were people who didn't like the idea of the text not being displayed, as well as it being icon centric. But alas, those waves slowly settled, and things continued on as normal.

This does not mean that I am saying that you don't have a point, or my preferences are best. I'm just saying complaining about change is something that is constantly occurring.

Edited by Ad Man Gamer, May 31 2012, 2:59pm :

Ad Man Gamer said,
Is it me, or does anyone else find this article a little alarmist? If they're planning to remove the start menu then surely they'll want to remove the code behind it to make sure Windows doesn't contain any bloat. As Aethec, pointed out.

Surely in order for a third-party to add a start button, all it will mean is that they'll have to code one from scratch rather than using Windows code. The only version that I can think of which will not be able to be edited deeply would be WindowsRT which is mainly for tablet devices. I don't think people want a start button on a tablet device, and the fact that the desktop is even on that version puzzles me.

Microsoft has been bashed in the past for keeping legacy support. As soon as Microsoft decides to remove some legacy components, **** starts to hit the fan. A good example is a look at Vista. Now Vista itself wasn't all that bad. Most of the things that gave it a bad rep was the fact that it was being installed on devices which just didn't have the horsepower to run it, or the drivers for it were lazily constructed. The driver issue was mainly down to the fact that Vista changed the core driver model, and hardware manufacturers were being lazy. After all the security holes and bugs were fixed up and driver support for Vista became more mature. Vista was not all that bad of an OS. But the name was tarnished by its battle scars.

And then along came Win7, Vista re branded addition. But even then, there was also a bunch of naysayers complaining how the "super bar" was unproductive, unintuitive, copying Mac, blah blah blah. There were people who didn't like the idea of the text not being displayed, as well as it being icon centric. But alas, those waves slowly settled, and things continued on as normal.

This does not mean that I am saying that you don't have a point, or my preferences are best. I'm just saying complaining about change is something that is constantly occurring.


They certainly choose the wrong thing to remove when it comes to legacy support. What they should have done is made it 64-bit only. I hate to see such potential with this OS destroyed due to a bad decision. They could have at least made it optional to have the old start menu. Make it default to metro if they want but do not remove it entirely. Removing it all together should have been a windows 9 or windows 10 thing once people got used to it. This is too drastic.

Blocking the Start menu fixes is not hard to explain. They want to pressure people into Metro and on to the Windows Store so they can start getting revenues off app purchases like Apple does on iOS and the Mac App store.

ahhell said,
For the last damn time, it's a START screen not METRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So why is Microsoft calling apps written for the start screen Metro apps? It seems to me the start screen and metro are synonymous.

ahhell said,
For the last damn time, it's a START screen not METRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Start screen is however the gateway to Metro apps. I guess there's no reason they couldn't put Metro apps as shortcuts on a start menu but I think they want to discourage the use of the desktop as much as possible.

Eh, it shouldn't be too hard to adjust the sizing margins in the theme, and use different resources, I only hope Microsoft doesn't rip out the ability for DWM to display transparency at all, if they do that, we're ****ed without SERIOUS hacks.

Speaking of killing, it appears the news article about Windows 8 RP coming out on May 31 have disappeared also. So, maybe it was a big fluke? Probably so.

devHead said,
Speaking of killing, it appears the news article about Windows 8 RP coming out on May 31 have disappeared also. So, maybe it was a big fluke? Probably so.

No, It was removed as Featured. Scroll down a bit to find it

I see no reason to panic until Windows 8 Release Preview is released. remember when Windows 8 Consumer preview first came out in February this year. Then Classic Shell did not work at all in Windows 8 CP and some other start menu software did not. But then they updated Classic Shell to work with Windows 8 CP and now we have other start menu software,Vista Start Menu and Start Menu 7 and Vi Start that all works with Windows 8 CP. And now there is other start menu software and an updated Ribbon Disabler to work with Windows 8 CP.

So even if Classic Shell and other start menu software won't work in Windows 8 RP at first.it will be updated to work with the new code. As when the time comes for Windows 7 to be replaced with Windows 8. The Windows start menu will be very much in demand. And software makers of Classic Shell and other start menu software do not want to loose business.

So they will want to update their software to work with the new OS. I myself would not consider not having the Windows XP start menu on my Windows 8 as I do have now. It's not that I cannot use the metro start menu,I can. but the desktop looks bare without a start button and Windows start menu. In fact I think that the start button and start menu on the desktop improves Windows 8.And although I sometimes but not very often browse my Metro start menu.it is more convenient to use the Windows XP start menu that is on my desktop.rather than go back to the start screen.

I advise people to wait a week or so before rushing to install Windows 8 RP. That will then give you time to find out what does work with Windows 8 RP and what does not. And give software makers like Classic Shell time to update their software. Andrea Borman.

It's simple really, it if were that much better, they wouldn't need to force it on anyone.

It's obvious they're not so concerned with if it's "better" or not, they just want you to use it period.

But I do enjoy all the snide fanboy comments, probably the same kiss asses that have been irritating everyone since grade school. Maybe you can show up at the next government protest movement with "Everything is great" signs. :-)

Does StartScreen provide an MRU of apps/items launched?

Does StartScreen have Jump Lists for the occasional apps I use that I don't want padding my Taskbar?

Does StartScreen instantly present searches in a digest way across all media types, as I like it?

Does StartScreen/Win-key allow easy return of an obscured Taskbar, when something like a Citrix app has overlayered it?

Are StartScreen's full-screen transitions conducive to low-bandwidth RDP and VDI sessions?

I've posted this several times - I could go on, but when are the Kool-aid drinkers going to tell me how StartScreen is doing everything I use the Start Menu for?

Mugwump00 said,
Does StartScreen provide an MRU of apps/items launched?

Does StartScreen have Jump Lists for the occasional apps I use that I don't want padding my Taskbar?

Does StartScreen instantly present searches in a digest way across all media types, as I like it?

Does StartScreen/Win-key allow easy return of an obscured Taskbar, when something like a Citrix app has overlayered it?

Are StartScreen's full-screen transitions conducive to low-bandwidth RDP and VDI sessions?

I've posted this several times - I could go on, but when are the Kool-aid drinkers going to tell me how StartScreen is doing everything I use the Start Menu for?

Its not going to fill all those needs, its going to provide most people with a better replacement but for some like yourself its not, but a bit of perspective is required here I think.

1: MS are putting a lot on WinRT
2: While putting a lot on WinRT they are not killing the desktop
3: While they are not killing the desktop they do know that keeping the classic start menu will keep people out of winRT (to a degree, people do what they do, new stuff is never chosen over tried and tested by the average Joe)
4: the new start screen concept is still in its infancy, and we'll be seeing Version 1 in the final release - with plenty room for feedback and changes
5: I personally don't think MS are expecting most techy W7 users to upgrade - and certainly not business - they know how long people stuck with XP and when you combine that with the success of W7 we have a similar situation
6: I feel its the perfect time for MS to do this, businesses are happy with 7, all users are happy with 7, some will jump on W8 (I will) for one of the following reasons:

A: New tablet purchase
C: New hybrid purchase
B: New standard PC Purchase
E: Upgrade for the metro features and WinRT apps along with app store
F: Upgrade for deeper windows enhancements like file system, backup, speed, explorer improvements, task manager, security etc.
G: Upgrade for both above reasons

Some people wont upgrade, due to having extremely precise ways of doing things and not wanting to change those ways, even if that means they lose out on some of the new stuff.

Companies wont upgrade because they just wont, they never do until at least SP1, hell some are still on XP. The ones on 7 will consider that an upgrade to keep them sweet for a good few years.

Some wont upgrade simply because they never do, they buy a computer and use it and buy another one when it dies.


I also feel like some of these 'I'm not upgrading because of xyz' people may change their mind come release on the condition that there are some simply stunning Metro Apps and the store is rock solid amongst other things.

.air said,
god dam it,
you guys are more immature than the scriptkiddies on sites like hackforums.net..


yeah. more and more youthful little tyrants on here every day it seems

.air said,
god dam it,
you guys are more immature than the scriptkiddies on sites like hackforums.net..

And yet these users aren't hurling unwarranted childish insults at others...

I'll stick to Windows 7 until MS changes the desktop version of Windows. This is a huge difference between desktop and tablet. I also use 2 monitors to have as much space for working, so Windows 8 will not be suitable for it. Let them realize another mistake they will make by forcing people to use a "closed" OS.

damn theres alot of xp users in here still, im assuming your all xp users cause anyone that still uses a start button after vista or win7 is doing it wrong.

Colin McGregor said,
damn theres alot of xp users in here still, im assuming your all xp users cause anyone that still uses a start button after vista or win7 is doing it wrong.

I'm on 7 ultimate and I use the start button all the time. How am I doing it wrong and how the hell do you not use it?

Fine by me. One word, people: shortcuts. Actually it's two words but whatever. Use shortcuts. The start menu had it's time. The desktop isn't going away. Like the person above me said, you just have to rethink it. Start menu = start screen. But this time it's much more useful. You can gather lots of info about things just by looking at the start screen; weather, notifications, updates, emails, messages, stocks, scores, and much much more. Then you can flip over to desktop and go to down. MS can't win for losing or lose for winning. No matter what, people complain.

exotoxic said,
Someone should be able to code one from scratch. They would make a pile of money if they sold it for about £5.

Kinda agree. I believe the people behind the menu bar for Office 2007+ made a ton of money.

start screen = start menu displayed in a different way and exposes all apps (old and new WinRT apps). I seriously don't understand how people can claim it to cripple or harm workflow, how?

when using the old start menu, I can start apps and search
When using the start screen, I can start apps and search

Both of them are one click away from me being back to interacting with desktop (start menu = click anything other than start menu / start screen = click the top left pixel - honestly how is this hard?)

Anyway, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion - mine is 100% with MS, the old start menu needs to die so that people get used to using the start screen, so that WinRT apps have a chance - no one is killing the desktop, I use W8 on my laptop for all my work and spend most of the time on the desktop, but need to start an app now and again from the start screen (apps that aren't pinned to the taskbar), and can honestly say I'm starting to not like the look and feel of the start menu on my W7 computer now.

Once more - no one is killing the desktop, its simply a start menu replacement - and works very well and I'm sure will work better in the latest build - but the advantage is one starting point for all apps - rather than one for metro and one for W32 - one place where you start any app.

Ok, if Microsoft gives me the ability in Windows 8 to boot directly to the desktop, without seeing the new Start Screen, then I'll be ok with it as a Start Menu replacement.

'Till then, the desktop remains as a hidden, legacy feature or something.

MiukuMac said,
More likely result; more and more people will use something other than Windows.

Which of course is a great thing.

I cant all that one, tough one......although I will say this, most of the negative feedback that Ive seen has been by the so called 'techy' folks, EVERYONE I've shown my laptop running W8 to (that are not techy and didn't have a pre formed opinion from all the forums they go on) loved it, my 2 kids are using it, my mum and dad are using it, a couple of customers are using it - all love the new start screen.

Now my business partner doesn't like it, but he's obsessed with customisations (uses all sorts of 3rd party stuff, keeps changing it all etc.)

See a theme here?

I say when people walk into the shops and see all the computers running W8, and have a play with the start screen and some quality metro apps (assuming the metro apps pick up their game - I don't doubt this but don't know it either) I think they'll love it just the same as the people Ive shown it to and installed it for,

g0dlike said,
Ok, if Microsoft gives me the ability in Windows 8 to boot directly to the desktop, without seeing the new Start Screen, then I'll be ok with it as a Start Menu replacement.

'Till then, the desktop remains as a hidden, legacy feature or something.

You sound like a little spoiled child that isn't getting what it wants

Stoffel said,

You sound like a little spoiled child that isn't getting what it wants


All I want is options to use this OS as a "normal" OS.

MiukuMac said,
More likely result; more and more people will use something other than Windows.

Which of course is a great thing.

Never happens, people will stick with what they have and if they buy a new computer they will ask their techy friend to downgrade it for them.

duddit2 said,

I cant all that one, tough one......although I will say this, most of the negative feedback that Ive seen has been by the so called 'techy' folks, EVERYONE I've shown my laptop running W8 to (that are not techy and didn't have a pre formed opinion from all the forums they go on) loved it, my 2 kids are using it, my mum and dad are using it, a couple of customers are using it - all love the new start screen.

Now my business partner doesn't like it, but he's obsessed with customisations (uses all sorts of 3rd party stuff, keeps changing it all etc.)

See a theme here?

I say when people walk into the shops and see all the computers running W8, and have a play with the start screen and some quality metro apps (assuming the metro apps pick up their game - I don't doubt this but don't know it either) I think they'll love it just the same as the people Ive shown it to and installed it for,

I wouldn't count on that.

I work for a rather small IT firm that deals with the small in SMB, and most of our clients are shops, retailers, real estate firms, doctor offices, etc.

As I've mentioned quite a few times on this site (and others), we've been rolling out preview laptops that have Win8 and other needed applications installed. We leave them with our clients, ask them to use it primarily, and we support them throughout the test period (several weeks at the least).

The response and reception to Win8 hasn't been nearly as kind as you have experienced with your family.

Sadelwo said,

Never happens, people will stick with what they have and if they buy a new computer they will ask their techy friend to downgrade it for them.

Amen to that, we have clients that still cling to Win200 operating systems, as well as other clients that refuse to learn anything other than Lotus (IBM)SmartSuite.

They pay us to support them, so.. well... ok... don't complain when we overcharge you for support.

MiukuMac said,
More likely result; more and more people will use something other than Windows.

Which of course is a great thing.

Dare to dream.

Stoffel said,

You sound like a little spoiled child that isn't getting what it wants

You mean he sounds like 95% of consumers who have grown up on Windowed operating systems from MS and Apple...

And Microsoft is going to pay a heavy price for their ignorance of their traditional market base here.

Mortis said,
Ok, if Microsoft gives me the ability in Windows 8 to boot directly to the desktop, without seeing the new Start Screen, then I'll be ok with it as a Start Menu replacement.

'Till then, the desktop remains as a hidden, legacy feature or something.


You can. Do not know if with the RP will be possible (I think it will be) but you could assign a task to be executed at the desktop and not seeing (most of the times) the start screen.

I think it's great. For one, I won't be "upgrading" anytime soon, 7 is just fine with me, I don't see the advantage at this point.

But more to the point, this is classic Microsoft "Ignore what the stupid customer wants" strategy, they feel they can simply force it on the masses to help reach their long term market wide goals. That strategy worked out well with web browsers huh?, and I'm thankful they were so hard headed as now I have some great browser choices. One can only hope this will spur more serious OS development.

Microsoft just doesn't realize how many would welcome a user friendly alternative, It would be classic to watch them fall on their face going after the tablet market by irritating the desktop customers.

Hahaiah said,
I think it's great. For one, I won't be "upgrading" anytime soon, 7 is just fine with me, I don't see the advantage at this point.

But more to the point, this is classic Microsoft "Ignore what the stupid customer wants" strategy, they feel they can simply force it on the masses to help reach their long term market wide goals. That strategy worked out well with web browsers huh?, and I'm thankful they were so hard headed as now I have some great browser choices. One can only hope this will spur more serious OS development.

Microsoft just doesn't realize how many would welcome a user friendly alternative, It would be classic to watch them fall on their face going after the tablet market by irritating the desktop customers.

The consumer IS stupid. And an artist has every right to ignore the viewer, and should!

The article writer is assuming Microsoft's intention here. Could it be that they are removing legacy code to reduce the size and complexity of the OS, and the fact that you won't be able to enable old stuff is just a side effect? Aren't people constantly complaining that Windows has too much legacy code?

Now Microsoft is trying to clean Windows up and everyone complains...

JonathanMarston said,
Aren't people constantly complaining that Windows has too much legacy code?

The amount of code, either in RAM or on the hard drive, hasn't been an issue on modern computers for over a decade now.

Progress can be fun! Unfortunately, a lot of crusties don't like change and progress forced upon them. I think this is a good thing that Microsoft is doing. It largely prevents crusties from going in to less finicky users' machines and bringing back old ways of doing things just because it's their preference.
This is the same old crap that happened when Vista came out. Phoebe Small bought a brand new machine with Windows Vista on it. Before she even got a chance to try it, her well-meaning but misinformed crusty friend from the IT department at her work, Calvin Butterball, wiped the machine and installed Windows XP on it for her. She trusted him, so she starts telling everyone she knows that they should ask for Windows XP on their new machines.

Progress != Choice.

Let the people decide what's good or bad for them, ok?

Lack of choice and Lack of freedom = communism. Unfortunately, this is the path chosen by Windows devs. Soonor or later, they'll regret it.

g0dlike said,
Let the people decide what's good or bad for them, ok?

No, that is not how you efficiently design software. Half the reason Apple do so well is because they streamline everything to make it incredibly easy to work with.

g0dlike said,
Lack of choice and Lack of freedom = communism.
Oh, jeez. Seriously? Leave the silly (and incorrect) politics out of this.

g0dlike said,
Progress != Choice.

Let the people decide what's good or bad for them, ok?

Lack of choice and Lack of freedom = communism. Unfortunately, this is the path chosen by Windows devs. Soonor or later, they'll regret it.

You have a choice:

windows 7
windows 8

And Windows 8 is MICROSOFT's product, they can do what ever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it, you have the "freedom" to chose any OS out there...

communism? haha somebody needs to check what things mean..

oliver182 said,

You have a choice:
windows 7
windows 8

And what happens when Windows 7's support ends?

oliver182 said,

And Windows 8 is MICROSOFT's product, they can do what ever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it

So where can I go to buy a non-Windows PC that's affordable. Oh that's right, I can't.

simplezz said,
So where can I go to buy a non-Windows PC that's affordable. Oh that's right, I can't.

To take that argument and run with it: Microsoft can't make any decisions you disagree with, because other options are more expensive.

You get how that doesn't fly, right?

simplezz said,

So where can I go to buy a non-Windows PC that's affordable. Oh that's right, I can't.

You can build one by yourself, you can buy a chromebook, or just buy one with windows and install the OS of your choice..

Mortis said,
Progress != Choice.

Let the people decide what's good or bad for them, ok?

Lack of choice ... is the path chosen by Windows devs. Soonor or later, they'll regret it.

Windows has a 95% monopoly on the desktop (home & business) precisely BECAUSE Windows has had legacy support for ALL different kinds of interaction with the OS.

MANY users still just use shortcuts off a desktop with one wallpaper, for example.

And, with Windows 7, there are often six different ways to accomplish the same task, whether you are a keyboard jockey, install a third party dock, are a master of the start menu, etc. etc.

With Windows 8 they are going against 30+ years of Windows OS tradition...the approach that has kept them in a monopoly of the desktop for all of that time.

MS is trading their core competency/monopoly in order to experiment with unifying their new OS with small touch screen devices and it's a HUGE mistake to alienate their market base in this manner.

MS could have had it both ways if they had just left in a few legacy comforts for the other 95% of the computing world they helped build.

Instead, Windows 8 is going to go down in history as the New Coke of operating systems...

Mortis said,
Progress != Choice.

Let the people decide what's good or bad for them, ok?

Lack of choice and Lack of freedom = communism. Unfortunately, this is the path chosen by Windows devs. Soonor or later, they'll regret it.

More like unregulated capitalism - Microsoft is using their hold over the PC market to try and pressure users to use Bing and the Windows Store and their other services. Much more extreme than the Windows 98 + IE days yet so far no challenge.

I don't know why MS wants to remove it, but after using W8 since the DP, I have had no problems with it being gone, and don't even search for it anymore.

I chose to throw W8 on my moms and sisters computer, and they love it. My mom not knowing how computers work at all has super enjoyed giant squares that tell her exactly what thing she is looking for. Likewise my sisters desktop was 700 icons of everything she used and saved. She really enjoys the W8 interface because she was used to a mess of a screen. This keeps things more organized for her.

I'm not sure why MS wants to kill the start button, I prefer it over the metro start screen, but all in all, you'll get over it eventually.

gate1975mlm said,
What's next Microsoft will make us all use the same wallpaper on our desktop with no option to change it?

lol

They did that for Windows 7 Home Basic xD

xbamaris said,

They did that for Windows 7 Home Basic xD

It was Starter actually. Home basic didn't support themes but wallpapers weren't a problem.

Sadelwo said,

It was Starter actually. Home basic didn't support themes but wallpapers weren't a problem.

Oh I forgot it was Starter. Wow, too many W7 SKU's.

gate1975mlm said,
What's next Microsoft will make us all use the same wallpaper on our desktop with no option to change it?

lol

actually.. as for the backgrounds.. WP7 allows just white or black. And somewhere I think a few more options would be cooler but im not with these circle or lines or tribal pattern stuff.

Microsoft keeps the Start Button code? Windows is bloated!
Microsoft removes the Start Button code? They're offending developers!

Aethec said,
Microsoft keeps the Start Button code? Windows is bloated!
Microsoft removes the Start Button code? They're offending developers!

-1.

It's easy to see that you're not a programmer.
This is not about removing Start Button code. They deliberately remove the ability to hook/place custom buttons/windows to the task bar, so, they WRITE code that work against implementing such custom solutions.

Not a signle 3rd party solutions that "brought back" the Start menu did not use the original start menu code, as you can see they all look - more or less - different from the Windows 7 start menu. They all use new, own written code.

Regards.

[quote=g0dlike said,]
-1.

It's easy to see that you're not a programmer.
This is not about removing Start Button code. They deliberately remove the ability to hook/place custom buttons/windows to the task bar, so, they WRITE code that work against implementing such custom solutions.

Not a signle 3rd party solutions that "brought back" the Start menu did not use the original start menu code, as you can see they all look - more or less - different from the Windows 7 start menu. They all use new, own written code.

Regards.[/quote

Yes that's right, and?

W8 is being designed as a system that uses the start screen for launching apps, theres a lot riding on this, why the hell would they leave code in that allows 3rd party devs to 'bring back' something they are trying to move away from?

Honestly what is the big deal breaker with the start screen? really?

Oh and also, the article heavily leans to a 'MS Killing the desktop' theme - the start menu is NOT the desktop, the desktop works just fine, you just start apps from the start screen now and not the start menu (assuming you don't have the app pinned)

g0dlike said,

-1.

It's easy to see that you're not a programmer.
This is not about removing Start Button code. They deliberately remove the ability to hook/place custom buttons/windows to the task bar, so, they WRITE code that work against implementing such custom solutions.

Not a signle 3rd party solutions that "brought back" the Start menu did not use the original start menu code, as you can see they all look - more or less - different from the Windows 7 start menu. They all use new, own written code.

Regards.


You do not write code to remove functionality, you remove it. (unless you want to add an exception to something you normally allow, but that's not the case here)

Go to hell, MS.

Why the 3rd party start menus did bother you so much, that now you work against them? Leave people choice, ffs.

g0dlike said,
Go to hell, MS.

Why the 3rd party start menus did bother you so much, that now you work against them? Leave people choice, ffs.

This article is sensationalist nonsense. Nobody knows if it will or will not be possible to add a type of start menu to Windows 8's taskbar. All Microsoft are doing is removing the code for their own start menu and button. It entirely possible that the likes of Stardock will still be able to add a start button to the taskbar still, there implementation doesn't even use the Micrsoft assets. The button used a choice of BMP files, and the actual menu was just a small windowed version of the start screen. Microsoft removing assets should not affect that.

StrykerMikado said,
Looks like I will be sticking with windows 7 for another 5 years.

Me too. In the meantime, I'll start reconsider Linux.

g0dlike said,

Me too. In the meantime, I'll start reconsider Linux.
You said Linux... that's worse than saying "I'll just reinstall XP"

StrykerMikado said,
Looks like I will be sticking with windows 7 for another 5 years.

Same here. We have better things to do than trash all of our current hardware just so we can have touch-screens, or reconfigure our way of doing business just to suit a new Operating System. I don't see MS coming out with any financial inducements for people to change.

StrykerMikado said,
Looks like I will be sticking with windows 7 for another 5 years.

your choice. I'll be getting another tablet that's directly built for windows 8 and I'll be getting another laptop also build for windows 8 my current DV7 2011.

Why in the hell is Microsoft so much against users wanting to use the Start Menu from Windows 7?

I just don't understand this at all.

For gods sake what would it hurt if they gave users a choice of using one or the other?

My god get a clue Microsoft!!!

gate1975mlm said,
Why in the hell is Microsoft so much against users wanting to use the Start Menu from Windows 7?

I just don't understand this at all.

For gods sake what would it hurt if they gave users a choice of using one or the other?

My god get a clue Microsoft!!!

MS wants you to use whatever you want, all they're doing is taking out the old start menu code because, for them, they don't need it anymore. What happened to this huge outcry that Windows was too bloated and they needed to drop legacy support/code to make it lean? So now that they do it you feel offended? Someone will make a newer start menu app for you, it'll just be harder for them to do so now that the old hooks in the OS from the original start menu are gone, big deal.

gate1975mlm said,
Why in the hell is Microsoft so much against users wanting to use the Start Menu from Windows 7?

Or the Start menu from Vista. Or XP. Or 98, etc, etc.

It is not a good idea continually support obsolete code/features in new releases - it's a support nightmare, and slows development.

gate1975mlm said,
Why in the hell is Microsoft so much against users wanting to use the Start Menu from Windows 7?

I just don't understand this at all.

For gods sake what would it hurt if they gave users a choice of using one or the other?

My god get a clue Microsoft!!!

You have a choice. Windows 7 or Windows 8. Both are entirely different platforms similar in name only.

gate1975mlm said,
Why in the hell is Microsoft so much against users wanting to use the Start Menu from Windows 7?

I just don't understand this at all.

For gods sake what would it hurt if they gave users a choice of using one or the other?

My god get a clue Microsoft!!!

All this means is those who want to provide a start menu "hack" will actually have to write the code to do it. They aren't keeping the start menu hacks from existing, they're just not allowing them to use Microsoft's Code that Microsoft doesn't need anymore.

Interesting. They are pushing Metro HARD... It will definitely be interesting to see how usable it is with everyday desktop use. So far I'm kind of mixed on the matter. I'm hoping it is successful...

M_Lyons10 said,
Interesting. They are pushing Metro HARD... It will definitely be interesting to see how usable it is with everyday desktop use. So far I'm kind of mixed on the matter. I'm hoping it is successful...

Nobody will know how useful it is on a day to day basis until the apps they use day to day are metro versions. People saying that Metro is useless right now are clueless idiots... of course it's useless right now... by definition. There are no apps to make it useful.

TCLN Ryster said,

Nobody will know how useful it is on a day to day basis until the apps they use day to day are metro versions. People saying that Metro is useless right now are clueless idiots... of course it's useless right now... by definition. There are no apps to make it useful.

I agree with your premise but there is one thing I've yet to feel out. Is MS going to require "touch" UX layouts of all metro apps. Or will metro apps be allowed to be built with a "precision" UX layout (or have a choice between the two.

If MS doesn't allow Metro Apps to have a "precision" UX Metro apps will not succeed on the desktop. So much screen realestate is wasted (in a precision environment like mouse/keyboard/stylus) to allow for the touch layout (spacing between elements, size of buttons, etc.).

Again, I agree with you, but the ability to accomodate both UX's will determine Metro's fate.

MrHumpty said,
I agree with your premise but there is one thing I've yet to feel out. Is MS going to require "touch" UX layouts of all metro apps. Or will metro apps be allowed to be built with a "precision" UX layout (or have a choice between the two.

If MS doesn't allow Metro Apps to have a "precision" UX Metro apps will not succeed on the desktop. So much screen realestate is wasted (in a precision environment like mouse/keyboard/stylus) to allow for the touch layout (spacing between elements, size of buttons, etc.).

Again, I agree with you, but the ability to accomodate both UX's will determine Metro's fate.


I think I agree with you. I've not read the Metro UI guidelines, and I don't plan to lol, but I'd like to think that the guidelines allow for a good blend of precision and touch capableness (I know that's not a word lol).

Ugh. Seriously MS, your going to have a ton of complaints when people get Windows 8 on why they cant see the Start button or how the heck they get to the Metro Start Screen. Seriously, I LOVED the start button in the first leaked build where if you clicked it it would bring up the Metro Start Screen, I dont mind the start menu being gone, I just want some kind of BUTTON to get to the Metro Start Screen rather than hunting for the charms bar or the lower left of the screen. I highly doubt non-tech savvy people who get Windows 8 will know what to do.

I believe there will be a tutorial to point out the location of the start screen hotspot, so the fact that there's no button shouldn't be an issue.

xbamaris said,
Ugh. Seriously MS, your going to have a ton of complaints when people get Windows 8 on why they cant see the Start button or how the heck they get to the Metro Start Screen. Seriously, I LOVED the start button in the first leaked build where if you clicked it it would bring up the Metro Start Screen, I dont mind the start menu being gone, I just want some kind of BUTTON to get to the Metro Start Screen rather than hunting for the charms bar or the lower left of the screen. I highly doubt non-tech savvy people who get Windows 8 will know what to do.

I have to agree with you there. There should still be a button.

xbamaris said,
Ugh. Seriously MS, your going to have a ton of complaints when people get Windows 8 on why they cant see the Start button or how the heck they get to the Metro Start Screen. Seriously, I LOVED the start button in the first leaked build where if you clicked it it would bring up the Metro Start Screen, I dont mind the start menu being gone, I just want some kind of BUTTON to get to the Metro Start Screen rather than hunting for the charms bar or the lower left of the screen. I highly doubt non-tech savvy people who get Windows 8 will know what to do.

You have a button. It's the same button it has always been. It's square and has a windows logo on it. You can find it between the CTRL and ALT keys.

The onscreen button is still there too. Just move the mouse to the bottom left corner of the screen, again as you have always done, and it appears to click on.

It isn't rocket science.

TCLN Ryster said,

You have a button. It's the same button it has always been. It's square and has a windows logo on it. You can find it between the CTRL and ALT keys.

The onscreen button is still there too. Just move the mouse to the bottom left corner of the screen, again as you have always done, and it appears to click on.

It isn't rocket science.

If you would have read my post I already mentioned the the lower left corner. But you have to admit, thats a pretty stupid way for people who HAVN'T been following Windows 8 to know how to get there, even with a tutorial, Its not like the ON SCREEN button from the first leaked build took up alot of room, and it made the start bar look a hell of alot nicer looking. It looks too empty without some kind of on screen button.

xbamaris said,

If you would have read my post I already mentioned the the lower left corner. But you have to admit, thats a pretty stupid way for people who HAVN'T been following Windows 8 to know how to get there, even with a tutorial, Its not like the ON SCREEN button from the first leaked build took up alot of room, and it made the start bar look a hell of alot nicer looking. It looks too empty without some kind of on screen button.


Except that it would be just as confusing for those who "HAVN'T been following Windows 8" to have a start button that doesn't bring up the start menu they expect. When the first build came out, the people complaining that the button didn't do what they expected it to do were just as numerous and as loud as those complaining the button has now been removed altogether.

Microsoft cannot win either way. At least this way they make the point that this is a totally new platform and you should not expect it to work the way the previous versions of Windows do.

billyea said,
I believe there will be a tutorial to point out the location of the start screen hotspot, so the fact that there's no button shouldn't be an issue.

You clearly have never worked in IT or have family members that you help with their computers, do you? 8P

Well that's just silly. If they don't want to provide a Start button then that's their choice (although I disagree with it). And I guess if they want to take out "unnecessary" to slim the OS down then they can do that as well, it's their code after all.
But do they really think that they can completely remove any chance of a Start button? Once Windows 8 is officially out, I guarantee you someone will come up with a Start button.

Intrinsica said,
Well that's just silly. If they don't want to provide a Start button then that's their choice (although I disagree with it). And I guess if they want to take out "unnecessary" to slim the OS down then they can do that as well, it's their code after all.
But do they really think that they can completely remove any chance of a Start button? Once Windows 8 is officially out, I guarantee you someone will come up with a Start button.

There won't be a start button in the traditional sense because they are gutting the code that allows the button to interface with the system. The only remote possibility I see is a button that takes you to the start screen. Even the start menu code is being removed I bet.

Intrinsica said,
Well that's just silly. If they don't want to provide a Start button then that's their choice (although I disagree with it). And I guess if they want to take out "unnecessary" to slim the OS down then they can do that as well, it's their code after all.
But do they really think that they can completely remove any chance of a Start button? Once Windows 8 is officially out, I guarantee you someone will come up with a Start button.

If someone makes one on their own then that's fine and good for them, all MS is doing, as you say, is taking out legacy code that they don't need in there anymore. It just so happens that some of that made it easier to make those start menu replacement apps.

Oh well, if you're as good of a coder as you like to think they come up with a new menu from scratch, if that's what you want.

Intrinsica said,
Well that's just silly. If they don't want to provide a Start button then that's their choice (although I disagree with it). And I guess if they want to take out "unnecessary" to slim the OS down then they can do that as well, it's their code after all.
But do they really think that they can completely remove any chance of a Start button? Once Windows 8 is officially out, I guarantee you someone will come up with a Start button.

I'd be surprised if the legacy code they're ripping out amounts to anything more than a few megs. They have one aim here and that is to force everyone to use RT

What exactly are they gaining by doing this? Pretty dumb move, if you ask me. I have a feeling this is going to cause a compatibility nightmare when this is released. Oh well, their fault if it crashes and burns, literally.

Astra.Xtreme said,
What exactly are they gaining by doing this? Pretty dumb move, if you ask me. I have a feeling this is going to cause a compatibility nightmare when this is released. Oh well, their fault if it crashes and burns, literally.

I'm trying to think of a way in which a program would rely upon the traditional Start Menu and can't... I don't think this is going to cause any incompatibility problems so much as confusion...

M_Lyons10 said,

I'm trying to think of a way in which a program would rely upon the traditional Start Menu and can't... I don't think this is going to cause any incompatibility problems so much as confusion...

How many applications do you know that don't try to install start menu shortcuts?

start screen = start menu displayed in a different way and exposes all apps (old and new WinRT apps). I seriously don't understand how people can claim it to cripple or harm workflow, how?

when using the old start menu, I can start apps and search
When using the start screen, I can start apps and search

Both of them are one click away from me being back to interacting with desktop (start menu = click anything other than start menu / start screen = click the top left pixel - honestly how is this hard?)

Anyway, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion - mine is 100% with MS, the old start menu needs to die so that people get used to using the start screen, so that WinRT apps have a chance - no one is killing the desktop, I use W8 on my laptop for all my work and spend most of the time on the desktop, but need to start an app now and again from the start screen (apps that aren't pinned to the taskbar), and can honestly say I'm starting to not like the look and feel of the start menu on my W7 computer now.

Once more - no one is killing the desktop, its simply a start menu replacement - and works very well and I'm sure will work better in the latest build - but the advantage is one starting point for all apps - rather than one for metro and one for W32 - one place where you start any app.

Javik said,

How many applications do you know that don't try to install start menu shortcuts?


They will go under "All Apps" in the Start Screen.

duddit2 said,
start screen = start menu displayed in a different way and exposes all apps (old and new WinRT apps). I seriously don't understand how people can claim it to cripple or harm workflow, how?

For me at work I need like 15 windows open and showing me live data on the screen at once. Some are overlapped by others in my certain anal retentive way, but what's nice about the Start menu is that the WHOLE screen doesnt change while I'm looking for a program or simply trying to launch an app.

If they cripple all attempts at Start Menu hacks for sure, then we will see the resurgence of users just putting tons of icons on their desktop screen to launch stuff as to not be jarred back in and out of metro while trying to work.

Astra.Xtreme said,
What exactly are they gaining by doing this? Pretty dumb move, if you ask me. I have a feeling this is going to cause a compatibility nightmare when this is released. Oh well, their fault if it crashes and burns, literally.

They're removing legacy code that is unused. Microsoft dropped the start menu. Dangling bits and pieces of it floating around qualifies as the 'bloat' that people always complain about.

AmazingRando said,

For me at work I need like 15 windows open and showing me live data on the screen at once. Some are overlapped by others in my certain anal retentive way, but what's nice about the Start menu is that the WHOLE screen doesnt change while I'm looking for a program or simply trying to launch an app.

If they cripple all attempts at Start Menu hacks for sure, then we will see the resurgence of users just putting tons of icons on their desktop screen to launch stuff as to not be jarred back in and out of metro while trying to work.


You sum up what I don't get about this argument - while looking for an app to open why in the name of god do you need to see a bunch of windows in the background? Your opening the start menu to start an app, who cares if the screen changes?

All I see is a benefit, as you see more of the apps you are possibly looking for without the fiddly folder structure of nested programs in the old start menu.

Am I missing something? I have a feeling that if I am, its one of those absolutely unique situations people come up with when trying to staunchly defend and opinion - like sometimes I have this app open and I need to see it so that I can do a search for a bit of text that appears in the app and the app doesn't allow copy/paste and then I need to compare 3 search result apps to find the best one to do the...........ahh f**k it

duddit2 said,


You sum up what I don't get about this argument - while looking for an app to open why in the name of god do you need to see a bunch of windows in the background? Your opening the start menu to start an app, who cares if the screen changes?

All I see is a benefit, as you see more of the apps you are possibly looking for without the fiddly folder structure of nested programs in the old start menu.

Am I missing something? I have a feeling that if I am, its one of those absolutely unique situations people come up with when trying to staunchly defend and opinion - like sometimes I have this app open and I need to see it so that I can do a search for a bit of text that appears in the app and the app doesn't allow copy/paste and then I need to compare 3 search result apps to find the best one to do the...........ahh f**k it

The traditional start menu has been around a long time because it is efficient, and it's not surprising people have an attachment to it. It's what we're used to... it works.

The Start screen is not entirely bad, but it doesn't exactly make things more efficient for PC users. However, I do appreciate that MS are trying to unify the platform, to make it is consistent across a range of devices. Once tablets etc begin to become more common in offices (I strongly believe they will), the metro interface begins to make a bit more sense.

AmazingRando said,

For me at work I need like 15 windows open and showing me live data on the screen at once. Some are overlapped by others in my certain anal retentive way, but what's nice about the Start menu is that the WHOLE screen doesnt change while I'm looking for a program or simply trying to launch an app.

If they cripple all attempts at Start Menu hacks for sure, then we will see the resurgence of users just putting tons of icons on their desktop screen to launch stuff as to not be jarred back in and out of metro while trying to work.

It covers the screen for a whole 5 seconds. Why is this such an issue? Seems like you're blowing this way out of proportion.

AmazingRando said,

For me at work I need like 15 windows open and showing me live data on the screen at once. Some are overlapped by others in my certain anal retentive way, but what's nice about the Start menu is that the WHOLE screen doesnt change while I'm looking for a program or simply trying to launch an app.

If they cripple all attempts at Start Menu hacks for sure, then we will see the resurgence of users just putting tons of icons on their desktop screen to launch stuff as to not be jarred back in and out of metro while trying to work.

Sounds like someone has a case of "I need moar monitors but don't have them" If you really do have that kind of a setup, and you have only one monitor you need to fix that quickly. You're productivity decrease endured by the new startscreen is tiny compared to the productivity decrease you're enduring by using one monitor.

Javik said,

How many applications do you know that don't try to install start menu shortcuts?


Lots of software still ask if you want to add a quick launch shortcut.

MioTheGreat said,

They're removing legacy code that is unused. Microsoft dropped the start menu. Dangling bits and pieces of it floating around qualifies as the 'bloat' that people always complain about.

Honestly, "bloat" hasn't been an issue with modern computers for over a decade. Unless someone is STILL running an Windows XP era machine with ancient amounts of RAM and HD space, modern computers have room to spare in every department.

duddit2 said,


You sum up what I don't get about this argument - while looking for an app to open why in the name of god do you need to see a bunch of windows in the background? Your opening the start menu to start an app, who cares if the screen changes?

All I see is a benefit, as you see more of the apps you are possibly looking for without the fiddly folder structure of nested programs in the old start menu.

Am I missing something? I have a feeling that if I am, its one of those absolutely unique situations people come up with when trying to staunchly defend and opinion - like sometimes I have this app open and I need to see it so that I can do a search for a bit of text that appears in the app and the app doesn't allow copy/paste and then I need to compare 3 search result apps to find the best one to do the...........ahh f**k it

I watch lots of shows and videos on my PC, basically, the kind Microsoft is targetting basically. Yet, at times I do wish to run something, maybe a Windows Explorer window. I don't have it pinned on my taskbar because it's something I don't use often and I don't want to clog it up with unnecessary items. Currently, I'd press the start button, click on Computer quickly, and I'll have Windows Explorer launch, while not distracting myself from the video. I'll still be able to see 90% of the video I'm watching.

With the Start Screen, I'll be able to hear only the sound for those 3 seconds. It could be a crucial plot moment. Sure you can rewind and all, but it kinda ruins the experience, don't you think?

If they made a non-fullscreen version of the Start screen, something like the Search charm, I guess people would be more welcoming of the change. Too bad the Search charm doesn't seem to be able to search for All Apps while within an application itself. This is something MS should address.

In addition, the hot corners paradigm interfere somewhat with some desktop controls. In the Ribbon interface, you have some quick access buttons available on the top-left hand corner. If you maximise a window, however, clicking on these buttons will inadvertently activate the top left-hand hot corner which will switch you to a metro app. If I have only desktop apps running nothing will happen, but of course, if Microsoft is wanting us to switch to metro they should probably address this!

Too bad there's no way I can get my voice heard. This is like my 3rd time posting this but somehow no one seems to care.

trenzterra said,
I watch lots of shows and videos on my PC, basically, the kind Microsoft is targetting basically. Yet, at times I do wish to run something, maybe a Windows Explorer window. I don't have it pinned on my taskbar because it's something I don't use often and I don't want to clog it up with unnecessary items. Currently, I'd press the start button, click on Computer quickly, and I'll have Windows Explorer launch, while not distracting myself from the video. I'll still be able to see 90% of the video I'm watching.

With the Start Screen, I'll be able to hear only the sound for those 3 seconds. It could be a crucial plot moment. Sure you can rewind and all, but it kinda ruins the experience, don't you think?

If they made a non-fullscreen version of the Start screen, something like the Search charm, I guess people would be more welcoming of the change. Too bad the Search charm doesn't seem to be able to search for All Apps while within an application itself. This is something MS should address.

In addition, the hot corners paradigm interfere somewhat with some desktop controls. In the Ribbon interface, you have some quick access buttons available on the top-left hand corner. If you maximise a window, however, clicking on these buttons will inadvertently activate the top left-hand hot corner which will switch you to a metro app. If I have only desktop apps running nothing will happen, but of course, if Microsoft is wanting us to switch to metro they should probably address this!

Too bad there's no way I can get my voice heard. This is like my 3rd time posting this but somehow no one seems to care.

I agree with you completely. However those that love metro will yell and scream that they're way is easier and you are holding on to the old and broken way of doing things. Don't worry about it, a new task manager isn't all that important; as that seems to be the only nice feature for Window 8. Stick with Windows 7, and hopefully weather all this non sense.

Windows 8 main objective is to create an App foothold similar to the Android and iTune stores. Why should Google and Apple be the only ones who profit from micro apps? Unfortunately this is reverse to what Windows has been established as up to this point. This is also why they cannot give users choice regarding Metro, if they did that, some people would not use it and that would mean less profits, and failed Metro based products.

Vice said,
This is just another reason not to use Windows 8 in my opinion.

Couldn't agree more. WinRT is proving unpopular, so what do they do? **** off everyone that wants to be able to do it. Yeah, smart move.

Vice said,
This is just another reason not to use Windows 8 in my opinion.

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

I can search for things, access control panel, access the shutdown, logoff and other buttons, I can launch some applications, I can access the command prompt, explorer, my documents. And all by using only 4% of my entire screen real estate. I can do all that without blocking my monitor and being able to see my open apps. I can drag files from the search results in the start menu to my open application windows.

There are lots of reasons I use it. And I do not want metro and I shouldn't have to need it. Thus I will not be upgrading. And of course it's only my opinion that is why I said "in my opinion".

ctrl_alt_delete said,

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.


The problem isn't the lack of a f*cking start button, the problem is that we don't want to be forced to see that big start screen everytime we log on (as this is more or less a "start menu", we rarely use it, anyway). Instead, we'd appreciate an option to boot directly to the desktop. Get it?

g0dlike said,

The problem isn't the lack of a f*cking start button, the problem is that we don't want to be forced to see that big start screen everytime we log on (as this is more or less a "start menu", we rarely use it, anyway). Instead, we'd appreciate an option to boot directly to the desktop. Get it?

There is an option for that, it's called Windows 7. Windows 8 is an entirely new platform, not just an evolution of the previous version.

Besides, most of the new stuff in Windows 8 on the desktop side can easily be replicated on Windows 7 for free with addons, so if you don't like metro and have no plans to even give it a try, then why would you even buy Windows 8 in the first place?

Vice said,
This is just another reason not to use Windows 8 in my opinion.

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

Javik said,

Couldn't agree more. WinRT is proving unpopular, so what do they do? **** off everyone that wants to be able to do it. Yeah, smart move.

Huh? O'rly? You're a developer eh?

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

Win95, revolutionary. Win98 Fine Tuning. WinME Win98 2.0 with some tweaks (waste of money not crap). WinXP NT Codebase, tons of problems at launch. Vista Revolutionary (GPU) perfectly find after an SP (much like XP). Windows 7 (Fine tuning Vista). Win 8, obviously not Tweaks... so if you're following a trend I'd say revolutionary.

But since it hasn't be released yet we don't know.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

Win8 (crap) ... Win9(greatest)

Vice said,
This is just another reason not to use Windows 8 in my opinion.

Start switching to another OS because it's not going to be back anytime soon :-D

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)
I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

You forgot Windows 2000

MrHumpty said,
WinME Win98 2.0 with some tweaks (waste of money not crap).
Actually, Windows ME was pretty bad. It had compatibility issues with a lot of programs and drivers, as well as stability issues. I bought the upgrade version and it actually crashed during install the first time I ran it, which obviously didn't create a good impression. I ended up going back to Win98SE, despite having spent money on the upgrade.

Looks like you must have used the start menu for many years and didn't find anything wrong with it or you would have not used Windows.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

Totalaero said,
You forgot Windows 2000

And 98 SE, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2008R2, Windows Home Server 1 and 2. Windows Media Centre Edition etc

There has been a lot of windows versions but 2000 and XP were very similar as were 98 and 98 SE, 2008 and 2008 R2. Microsoft very rarely does a full rewrite they just take their old code and change it so all the operating systems are very similar since the NT kernel has been used.

g0dlike said,

The problem isn't the lack of a f*cking start button, the problem is that we don't want to be forced to see that big start screen everytime we log on (as this is more or less a "start menu", we rarely use it, anyway). Instead, we'd appreciate an option to boot directly to the desktop. Get it?

It's only a button click away, Peaches.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.


... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (Microsoft's demise)
I think you forgot to put Windows 2000 there.

TCLN Ryster said,

There is an option for that, it's called Windows 7. Windows 8 is an entirely new platform, not just an evolution of the previous version.

Besides, most of the new stuff in Windows 8 on the desktop side can easily be replicated on Windows 7 for free with addons, so if you don't like metro and have no plans to even give it a try, then why would you even buy Windows 8 in the first place?

So you're saying the new file system is coming to Windows 7?

I thought not... No, this is not going to go over well with the producers of content on PC's. I've already recommended to over 300 of my clients not to upgrade until at least Windows 9 which hurts my business also.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

sometimes, if i go to a friends house, and i use their computer, i'll look at the start menu to find a game, or some other program to use. Some have lots of games and apps installed, arranged in folders. (i don't know what's installed, so how can i search?)

I could never imagine having 60+ icons on the win8 metro screen to scroll through.

(did they ever make it scroll up and down, or is it still left and right?)

Kelxin said,

So you're saying the new file system is coming to Windows 7?

I thought not... No, this is not going to go over well with the producers of content on PC's. I've already recommended to over 300 of my clients not to upgrade until at least Windows 9 which hurts my business also.

To what new file system are you referring? I'm using Win8 CP and my disk got formatted with NTFS still.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

I love how people think their opinions of an OS equal a pattern. Also you forgot Win2k. Which regardless what it was meant for it was still used as a consumer OS due to WinME's problems so it counts.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

Windows 95 was not crap, actually it was very, VERY, well received. Windows 98 was crap, adding IE as the file shell, Windows ME was even worse. Windows 2000 was rock solid and XP was a refinement. Vista was good but over-intrusive UAC and initial driver problems drove it to the ground, Windows 7 it's great. So no, there's no pattern here.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

The issue is the Start screen takes up a full screen, it would work better if it didn't.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.

seriously sick of this crap... win95 good... win98 crap...win98SE good yada yada yada, there is no pattern, but not only removing the start nenu from windows 8 and making it harder for those of us who want it back is ridiculous In my opinion..

TCLN Ryster said,

There is an option for that, it's called Windows 7. Windows 8 is an entirely new platform, not just an evolution of the previous version.

Besides, most of the new stuff in Windows 8 on the desktop side can easily be replicated on Windows 7 for free with addons, so if you don't like metro and have no plans to even give it a try, then why would you even buy Windows 8 in the first place?

there are those of us who have to sell and repair computers and have no choice

ctrl_alt_delete said,

that's all your opinion. I don't need a start menu. it's not needed, it's not a big deal to me if it's there or not. in all honesty the only thing I've used the start menu for in windows 7 is to search for my files/apps: press start button on screen or keyboard/device>type what I want>press enter. that's the only use of the start button.

in windows 8 it's basically the same thing: press windows key on keyboard/device or press start button charm>type what I want>press enter

can you please tell me in truth what you do with the start menu other than search for the things you want.

think he said that it WAS his opinion , which he's allowed to have and its not the start button, its the menu, but anyways bla bla bla

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.


I bet you see "patterns" and "hidden meaning" everywhere where they don't belong or exist.

g0dlike said,

The problem isn't the lack of a f*cking start button, the problem is that we don't want to be forced to see that big start screen everytime we log on (as this is more or less a "start menu", we rarely use it, anyway). Instead, we'd appreciate an option to boot directly to the desktop. Get it?

This ^^

Why on earth won't Microsoft just listen to their userbase? It's almost like they are intentionally trying to **** everybody off.

daniel_rh said,

Start switching to another OS because it's not going to be back anytime soon :-D


I'll bet you £100 that It'll be back in Windows 9. Can you imagine the return rate of PC's with Windows 8 in its current state? That's a **** storm waiting to happen.

simplezz said,

I'll bet you £100 that It'll be back in Windows 9. Can you imagine the return rate of PC's with Windows 8 in its current state? That's a **** storm waiting to happen.

And I already know of roughly 10 million computers (major corporate clients) that will NOT be upgrading to Windows 8. The IT manpower costs in trying to explain even the basic GUI design mistakes (e.g. invisible controls, no start option means no legacy user support, no close gadgets, etc.) isn't worth it to any corporate IT department. They're already skipping Windows 8 and I suspect than means they will be holding onto Windows 7 like they held on to XP during the Vista years. Bad news for MS.

Vice said,
This is just another reason not to use Windows 8 in my opinion.

"Microsoft has recently been "furiously ripping out" legacy code in Windows 8 that lets third-party developers bring back the Start button, Menu and the other parts of the desktop interface" ==
"Microsoft has recently been channeling their efforts into creating a failure product by deliberately denying consumers the features they desire"

You got it just right.

sabrex said,

Win95 (crap) ... Win98 (decent) ... WinMe (crap) ... WinXP (good) ... Vista (crap) ... Win7 (great) ... Win8 (?)

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. Luckily, Win9 will probably be a fantastic release if the pattern holds up.