Sorry, Windows Blue won't bring back the Start button

If you have been hoping, dreaming, wishing, that Windows Blue - which is set to (unofficially) arrive in the Summer of 2013 - would bring back the Start button, you may want to take a seat. According to a new report from CNbeta, who has leaked quite a bit of Windows 8 information previously, they are stating that Windows Blue will not bring the Start button back to Windows 8.

This should not come as a surprise as Microsoft would have a massive egg on it's face if it did cave to users requests to return the iconic button. But beyond not brining back the Start button, the source is also saying that Microsoft will continue to make tweaks to the desktop and that there will be updates to the taskbar too. What these tweaks are or will include were not stated. In addition to tweaks, the entire UI will appear flattened (think metro), the kernel will get updated to 6.3 (which we had previously heard) and will be provided free or at a very affordable price.

With flatter look being applied to more parts of the UI, all aspects of Aero will be killed off completely with Windows Blue, according to the source.

While we wait for more details to leak out about what Microsoft has up its sleeve for Windows Blue, we have been hearing whispers that it will not be called Windows 9, as some reports have previously suggested and will likely retain the Windows 8 moniker.

With a Summer launch expected, we should hear from Microsoft, relatively soon about the plans it has for Windows Blue and how Redmond will transition to annual updates for one of its largest revenue generating entities. 

Source: CNbeta

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Irony alert: Microsoft Office skills needed for some of Google's jobs

Next Story

Microsoft extends deadline for Imagine Cup challenge quizzes

193 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Another reason not to downgrade from 7 to 8 he says FROM HIS DESKTOP Like most real computer users. Cant see the apps desktop being any good at work.

Good news. I prefer the startscreen over the startmenu, even on non-touch devices. The moment you opened the startmenu you were unable to use anything else on the desktop so what is the benefit of it only filling up one corner of the screen?

I do think Microsoft should make Windows 8 more adaptable to the screensize/resolution, as in unhidding the hidden UI elements for large monitors. But I do prefer the startmenu. You can also access the startscreen via the leftcorner so I really dont get all this b*tching about it. The button is now invisible and the menu is fullscreen but the functionality is stil there. Adding the button for the desktop mode would be a aesthetic change, nothing else.

According to CNET, downgrades back to Windows 7 are happening at the rate of several hundred per day. So much for Microsoft's spin about new PC sales counting as Windows 8 sales - the vast majority of mainstream computer users are steering well clear of Win 8.

Windows Nashville said,
According to CNET, downgrades back to Windows 7 are happening at the rate of several hundred per day. So much for Microsoft's spin about new PC sales counting as Windows 8 sales - the vast majority of mainstream computer users are steering well clear of Win 8.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Try actually addressing the points being raised rather than dismissing disagreement with insults. (And try reading some other tech sites in addition to Neowin while you're at it.)

Windows Nashville said,
According to CNET, downgrades back to Windows 7 are happening at the rate of several hundred per day.

Link?

Try actually addressing the points being raised rather than dismissing disagreement with insults.

Sure thing.

Downgrades at a rate of only several hundred per day when Microsoft is selling hundreds of thousands of licenses per day (at their last reported rate) is a mere rounding error. Fact is, according to statcounter, Windows 7 has been steadily losing market share since the day Windows 8 launched, Oct 26.

If the vast majority of mainstream computer users were steering clear of Windows 8 you wouldn't see Windows 8 marketshare increasing at a faster rate than Windows 7 marketshare was increasing before Oct 26 (again, according to Statcounter).

Since when is several hundred the vast majority? I am pretty sure that the numbers of W8 systems sold daily would make 'several hundred' a 1 digit ‰ number at best.

That and CNET is not unknown for their anti MSFT stance in he first place and they will bend anything they can into sounding like the worst thing ever here.

Sure W8 is different and sure it will take some getting used to for some, but it is far from worse then Vista which was not bad at all, it just suffered from a majority of lazy hardware manufacturers who did not do their jobs and get their driver models updated in time. MSFT did tell them, warn them and tell them again but hey simply waited until it was too late.

W8 is vastly better then W7 in every aspect, especially everyday use of the desktop which is a much more smooth and solid experience then with W7, and that is saying something.

In the real world, outside the restricted and relatively minute micro world we live in online, these things are much less of an issue. It would be good for many here to take of their 'techblog' shades and get out there in the sun for a while..

Edited by paulheu, Dec 29 2012, 2:34pm :

What is it with this _fetish_ for the start button? I just do not get it.

Windows 8 runs so much better on any hardware W7 runs on plus it runs really well on older hardware. My Asus eeepc 1001PX is a piece of sluggish junk on W7 but runs remarkably smooth now I installed W8 on it. Sure I need to patch the resolution to use the start screen apps, but the desktop is _WAY_ more solid and responsive then it was on W7. And my main Desktop PC is a joy to use, goes to sleep in under 10 seconds when I am done and back up in maybe 3-5 seconds.

And anything you can do with your start button I can do faster and more efficient with a single button press to START (pun intended here). The start screen is easier to manage, has much better customisation options and can hold much more information to be readily available then the start menu ever could.

Honestly, I just do not get the hate. But I must assume it's based on hearsay and stubborn behaviour more then it is on experience and actual first hand use.

People are ****ing mental, basically.

I've heard every single excuse under the sun with regards to Metro whining; "users won't know how to open programs", "nobody uses the Windows Key on their keyboard", "people can't work out how to open the charms bar", "I can't shut Windows 8 down!".

Even after you sit down with them and point out just how retarded they're being, they still don't get it. Personally I blame the entire fiasco on what I call the "Mouse Generation"; people who learnt to use computers with Windows XP, and seem to have been taught by their schools/parents that the keyboard is just for typing words in.

You know the sort, the 2-finger pecking type who also take about a minute to decide whether or not they should click on something or not. The fact is, when I designed Metro, I aimed it primarily at keyboard users; the touch support came out as a happy side-effect of the chromeless approach. Less chrome meant more space for content, which meant that content could be spread out across the entire screen, which meant larger surfaces for interaction.

And yet, you'll find that with most Metro apps, you can navigate them quicker using the keyboard (tab + arrow keys) than you can with a mouse, and theoretically even quicker than you can with a touchscreen.

Personally I've always found mouse interaction slow and cumbersome; unfortunately, being a graphic designer who can't draw by hand for ****, a mouse is a necessary evil in my line of work. Still, when I'm NOT doing design work, or gaming, I use the keyboard for pretty much everything. If I have to move something (a window, for example - although that'll all be over come Windows 9 ) I either use a 5" trackpad (for interacting with stuff on my secondary screens), or my touchscreen monitor.

mdcdesign said,
The fact is, when I designed Metro, I aimed it primarily at keyboard users; the touch support came out as a happy side-effect of the chromeless approach.

I use the keyboard for pretty much everything.

If I have to move something (a window, for example - although that'll all be over come Windows 9 ) I either use a 5" trackpad (for interacting with stuff on my secondary screens), or my touchscreen monitor.


Now, surely you forgot about "Alt+Space" "m" to move the window using keyboard?

The "Alt+Space" existed since windows 95 dude... (deprecated for Tiled or Single-Full-Screen metro apps)

And speaking of metro, metro look/feel alike that existed before 2010:
Observed Key-feature:
* Tiled multi tasking "apps", like metro
* Horisontally scrolled tiles, like metro
* Can only choose ONE/SINGLE tile to be immersive with, like metro
* Return from single immersive mode to tiled list mode, like metro
* Actively updated tiles, somehow like Metro's Live Tiles want to be

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgZx7JA8DZE
went i saw the video, i almost want to say that it copied metro interface until I see the uploaded date.
Its even earlier than 'early 2010' windows 8 mockups that published by Microsoft few month ago.

I knew some suspected that, metro design team saw the video then use it as 'inspiration'.

Edited by Torolol, Dec 29 2012, 8:45am :

mdcdesign said,
...The fact is, when I designed Metro, I aimed it primarily at keyboard users; the touch support came out as a happy side-effect of the chromeless approach. Less chrome meant more space for content, which meant that content could be spread out across the entire screen, which meant larger surfaces for interaction.
...
Personally I've always found mouse interaction slow and cumbersome; unfortunately, being a graphic designer who can't draw by hand for ****, a mouse is a necessary evil in my line of work. Still, when I'm NOT doing design work, or gaming, I use the keyboard for pretty much everything. If I have to move something (a window, for example - although that'll all be over come Windows 9 ) I either use a 5" trackpad (for interacting with stuff on my secondary screens), or my touchscreen monitor.

Thank you for explaining the Metro design process. Basically, it focused on how YOU like to use the computer because YOU think that is how everybody else should do. And so any customer feedback that was not consistent with YOUR model could be ignored, because the maxim "the customer is always right" only applies if the customer agrees with YOU. Otherwise, the customer is wrong.
Are you on the Blue team? If so, then please stop and listen. It is not "retarded" not to wish to have to memorise a list of obscure keyboard commands. It is arrogant and out of touch to describe your loyal customer base like that.
According to your explanation, you focused on touch and on keyboard. So mouse users got overlooked. That would explain why there are so many very disappointed users venting here. Their views are legitimate. Please do not waste an opportunity to address them.

Edited by gb8080, Dec 29 2012, 10:12am :

Just to clarify something to both the above posters, Windows 8 wasn't in development since 2010, it was in development since 2001.

As more and more graphics manufacturers (albeit just nVidia and ATI now as the others have pretty much disappeared) started offering hardware support for DX extensions, the idea was to go across to a composited UI; remember all of the "the UI will be 3D and completely different than Windows XP" rumours that sprang up during the Longhorn development stage? That was essentially the corruption and concatenation of two separate points: 1) composited UI, and 2) radically new interface.

Everyone assumed that the UI ITSELF would be 3D, rather than just making use of D3D surfaces for 2D composition. The "new UI" concepts ranged from things like the replacement of the Taskbar with a "Task Shelf", offering task-based interaction with the PC rather than application-based interaction. This was abandoned due to the perceived difficulty in getting application developers on-side; additionally, people wanted choice, and having a single application to do each task just seemed unfair with regards to personalization.

That later evolved into Sideshow (for push notifications) and Groupbar/Layoutbar for window management, but feedback metrics demonstrated that people - on the whole - weren't actually making use of the window management features in Windows anyway. The majority of applications were getting maximized, and the ones that weren't were the ones that COULDN'T be maximized due to the developers' choices when building them.

Feedback - through the CEIP - proved that the public wanted stuff maximized, so Metro was designed to facilitate this. The 70/30 split for pined apps was down - in no small part - to the rise of 16:9/10 displays over 4:3 ones, and the desire to aid people in using their desktop machines for live communication with other users. Essentially, the 70/30 thing is pretty much designed to have the Messaging app pinned to the right, and a browser pinned to the left. Obviously, you can do the same thing with other apps, but that was the most likely usage scenario.

To obtain other information, through live tiles, all a user has to do is hit the Windows key on their keyboard, take a look at the updates, then hit it again to go back to whatever it was they were doing. Sideshow and Vista/7's "gadgets" were integrated into an at-a-glance screen that didn't NEED to be visible all the time; the actual layout for the start screen UI really came out of that. People have moaned about the fact that the tiles are too big, information density is too low, etc, but in reality, most people will only be looking at it for a few seconds, so the density was a CRITICAL choice, and one I think the QA guys made the right call on.

The Start Button is the Past, I fail to see why the Windows' Users fail to embrace the New Generation of Windows.
The Start Screen is not Only designed for a Touch Screen, but it is even more useful with the power of using the Mouse.
Move your mouse to the "Top Right and go down along the Side" and you find yourself a shortcut to multiple Options: Options of the start Screen (Option or Settings when using in App), Windows Settings, (in Desktop mod you find Options of the old traditional Windows such as PC INFO), even Power Options (shut down, restart, etc)
Move your mouse to the "Top Left and go down along the Side" You can choose which Tabs to enter or to kill by closing them.
Move your Mouse to the "bottom Left" And Right Click, You'll get multiple Options aswell, including control Panel, Command Prompt, etc..

The Features of Windows 8 is all impressive, very productive and useful and a click away in many fields.

Windows 8 is becoming Special by having the ability to use Apps and Legacy Applications.

I use a one year old Laptop, upgraded to Windows 8, and can not even bother saying I regret it, it is way more stable, great Performance, and superb Interface.

Feel freely to debate,

yours truely
Jean-Pierre

Move your mouse three times clockwise and two times the other way, jump two times in front of your PC, and the say “wah wah” and your computer will make coffee or tea.
Why just not make it more obvious and put it on that large screen.

Removed Windows 8 and upgraded to Windows 7

I believe they should have made windows 8 touch and touch rt and then just a regular windows 8. The touch and touch rt should me the metro and the regular windows 8 should be the normal interface we are used to. All in ones and tablets are awesome with touch interface and metro would be great for that... but laptops and regular desktops/gaming machines need an option for the nontouch screen. Sometimes u just don't want a touch screen!

Sorry Microsoft Shares, the 30$ share or the even 20$ a share is not coming back
It is extremely simple, if you insist to produce a product that takes away what the majority of your customer's love, then regardless of how much performance you add to that product, many of them will not buy it.

Many of them will not buy it = less to no profit
Less or no profit = no money for salaries
No money for salary = jobless and not working on Windows Next

There was the prehistoric single app full screen UI (DOS)
There was the prehistoric single app full screen UI with multi tasking using the keyboard and a third party app (DOS + background app)
Then came Windows and other multi tasking multi apps OS
Then came the modern prehistoric single app basic colors full screen apps again

Good job Mrs. Green, I hope you stop taking your meds for 2 days so you can see how the real Microsoft Boxes, sorry Windows 8 looks like.

Stupidity has levels, but Windows 8 is just beyond any levels there are.

I don't have a problem with no start button or the start screen either. My issue is when u are in desktop mode and launching say a music file it launches metro music. O don't like the bouce from desktop mode to metro natively.

if I'm working in desktop mode (in a non RT version of 8) desktop apps should nativley open a desktop app to run.

at least when I installed adobe reader it asked me which program should run when I opened my next PDF.

You know, as much as I loathe the Win8 start screen.... and Metro in general... I wish they had just done like WinRT and gotten rid of the classic desktop interface altogether... I assume they didn't for backwards compatibility reasons more than anything, but *shrugs* to be honest, I'd rather go 100% classic UI or 100% "Modern UI".... The fact that Win8 enables both is a sign to me that they just didn't have the balls to take classic UI away from us... Except on tablets... Honestly, if you want us to use it, force it on us like RT... Don't make it so easy for us to hide it....

I seriously don't use ANY Win8 apps.... Mostly because I don't like being without my taskbar... They can promote the new UI all they want, but they haven't convinced me multitasking is easier in Modern UI yet.. And I've been using Win8 since beta phase.

The Start button is still there -.- In three different places (in the bottom left corner of the Desktop on hover, in the Charms bar, and on the keyboard) -.-

This is great news! It's important for Microsoft to not take a step backwards and pollute the new Windows with rubbish.

Oh no, the start menu isn't coming back! Whatever shall I do?

Oh wait. Start8, Classic Shell, ViStart, StartIsBack, pokki...the list goes on. I think I'll be fine if I ever choose to go to Windows 8.

Guess I lost my faith in windows then, but then again I bought almost from it's release Start8, but they can stick their Metro stuff on their ***, Now I really hope that android goes into desktop, just to show MS how touch things are properly made (and even adnroid has better mouse support)

Everything is going full-screen centric. I don't know why they don't call it "Window Blue", and change the logo so that the gaps between the four windows are filled in and there's just a single blue quadrilateral.

It's such a shame that this opportunity to respond to rational criticism is being wasted. The win8 model is scalable - there's win8 itself (tablet-centric), winphones8 (for phones), and win8 embedded (for embedded systems). So why not scale UP - to win8 for desktops?

Stop wasting space on large monitors with this unnecessary full-screen focus, restore Aero (the minimalist window borders aren't an aesthetic choice, the real motivation was power saving which desktops don't need), allow "modern" apps to run in windows (full screen is NOT modern, it predates windowed!), allow folders on the start screen so you can group related items (even iOs has that), and have a start button because it's discoverable and it's a target that you NEED if running Win8 in a windowed virtual machine or remotely.

I'm not a win8 hater, I run it on my primary laptop (with Start8 of course), but there are many obvious improvements that would make the desktop experience better if only MS would listen to constructive criticism.

gb8080 said,
Everything is going full-screen centric. I don't know why they don't call it "Window Blue", and change the logo so that the gaps between the four windows are filled in and there's just a single blue quadrilateral.

It's such a shame that this opportunity to respond to rational criticism is being wasted. The win8 model is scalable - there's win8 itself (tablet-centric), winphones8 (for phones), and win8 embedded (for embedded systems). So why not scale UP - to win8 for desktops?

Stop wasting space on large monitors with this unnecessary full-screen focus, restore Aero (the minimalist window borders aren't an aesthetic choice, the real motivation was power saving which desktops don't need), allow "modern" apps to run in windows (full screen is NOT modern, it predates windowed!), allow folders on the start screen so you can group related items (even iOs has that), and have a start button because it's discoverable and it's a target that you NEED if running Win8 in a windowed virtual machine or remotely.

I'm not a win8 hater, I run it on my primary laptop (with Start8 of course), but there are many obvious improvements that would make the desktop experience better if only MS would listen to constructive criticism.

You CAN group objects on the Start Screen. Also, tell me how I'm supposed to use windowed apps on a tablet or other touchscreen device? If you don't want fullscreen apps, don't use them. Stick to desktop apps.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Dec 28 2012, 2:41pm :

Dot Matrix said,

You CAN group objects on the Start Screen.

Ah, MrDotMatrix, we've been expecting you.
Grouping != folders.
Groups = clutter, folders = tidy.
iPhone originally didn't have folders, and the start screens accumulated clutter, so they implemented folders. Win8 failed to copy that aspect, to it's detriment.

And you don't need to use windowed apps on a touchscreen if you don't want to (Note: this is your own logic). But in 2012, I am forced to use fullscreen if I want to use a "modern" app - really?

gb8080 said,
.....?

Many modern apps don't even need to be launched to glean the information they provide, which is the point of Tiles over Icons.
What's the temperature, oh let me see, STart oh -20C
Press STart, back to productivity on the desktop

The reason there are no Folders on the start screen is it negates the value of live tiles.
What would you place as a visual clue it's a folder, a static Icon? THen what, drill in to see the live tiles, and then process the subset of live information?
On iOS I will give you they need folders, because it's always sunny and 73F degrees

deadonthefloor said,

The reason there are no Folders on the start screen is it negates the value of live tiles.

Only if you put the live tile in a folder. You don't have to. You can leave it out if you wish. I'd like folders for all the DEAD tiles, that just cause needless clutter. What's the problem with that?

I honestly don't get why people complain about such as thing as a lack of a Start-button. Use the Window-key or button to open the Start screen. Yes, you won't have a menu but there are programs solving that issue not necessarily simulating the Windows 7 Start-menu.

Now there are several 3rd party add-ons that bring back the traditional Start button/orb and Start menu,
like Classic Shell, Start8 and others, there's no need for Microsoft to bring them back. I use Classic Shell
to bring back the traditional Start button/orb and Menu, AND I use the Start Screen for the new apps.

Best of both worlds . . .

DJGM said,
. . .

So now if you press Windows+1 what happens
Oh, the same as pushing start on it's own

As someone who uses shortcuts to launch Pinned applications, the last thing I want is some workaround program taking up valuable shortcut key spots.

deadonthefloor said,

As someone who uses shortcuts to launch Pinned applications, the last thing I want is some workaround program taking up valuable shortcut key spots.

I don't know what start menu replacement you've used, but this is not the behavior of Classic Shell for example. Win+1 will still open up the first pinned item, not the start menu.

It's not necessarily the lack of a start button that is all messed up. It's just the fact of that ignorant looking mess that first comes up when starting Windows 8.

An engineer was DEFINITELY involved in that stupidity!! Their job is always to totally f**k up stuff for others!!

Yes,
I believe Windows 8 will be almost as big a flop as Vista, if it isn't already. I know I have absolutely NO intentions of upgrading. At least I KNOW I will not be paying to upgrade!! This whether I can handle that stupid looking mess or not, which I can.

This is good news!! I hardly ever use it in Windows 7 anyway , and I certainly don't miss it in Windows 8!!
C'mon Neowiniians , stop whining and start to move with the times ...

It's only a matter of time before msft realizes their horrible mistake of transforming a pure desktop os into garbage touchscreen bs. They fixed something that wasn't broken, there was zero reason to remove Aero too.

Get startisback, also has an option to turn off the translucency of the taskbar plus it's the only start menu for windows 8 that truly looks like it is from windows 7.

They need to make some modifications. I have to move the mouse around the screen way to much in order do the basics.

There needs to be an easier shutdown/restart method.

Although I like it that Aero is gone, the flat replacement is so flat it almost looks like MS didn't even try - its like they done it in paint.

People shouldn't have to move from one side of the screen, over to the over and then down to the bottom of the screen in order to get to items that used to be in the start menu's accessories menu.

The start screen doesn't need to go, it just needs to become functional and not just a big basic toolbar.

Metro apps are fine for the basics on a tablet but I don't want them opening everything by default on the desktop. Some people wont even know they don't have to go with this basic stuff.

Im just worried that one day my Sky Plus box is going to have more menus than Windows does, and that detailed settings are something hidden so far away, in no logical order.

Not a big deal... I've gotten used to having no start button, and having a start screen instead of a start menu.

Azies said,
Not a big deal... I've gotten used to having no start button, and having a start screen instead of a start menu.

Thats the thing. You still have a start button. In the same place as it always has been. It's even been made bigger. Just because it's not always visible doesn't mean its not there.

However, on the other side of the argument with myself being involved in IT, what they should have done in Win8 is left the Start button that switched to the Start screen when in desktop mode. Then in Win9, eliminated it altogether.

Condere said,
However, on the other side of the argument with myself being involved in IT, what they should have done in Win8 is left the Start button that switched to the Start screen when in desktop mode. Then in Win9, eliminated it altogether.

I am also involved in IT, and all your suggestion would do is postpone this incessant whininess to the next Windows Release.
I will concede that Legacy desktop VS apps isn't for everyone, but that's why OSX and Linux exist.

Like I've mentioned before... how is moving your mouse cursor down to the bottom left corner, waiting for that little box to pop up, then clicking on it to bring up the Start Panel, faster?
Would have been faster to have the button there already to click on to bring up the Start Panel.

LUTZIFER said,
Like I've mentioned before... how is moving your mouse cursor down to the bottom left corner, waiting for that little box to pop up, then clicking on it to bring up the Start Panel, faster?
Would have been faster to have the button there already to click on to bring up the Start Panel.

Ha, you don't even have to wait. Just go there and click.

You know why he didn't know he can "just click"? Because clicking an invisible tiny spot makes no ****ing sense to most people. It's hilarious how you both don't understand how your replies reaffirm the fact that Microsoft has made a piece of **** design.

audioman said,
You know why he didn't know he can "just click"? Because clicking an invisible tiny spot makes no ****ing sense to most people. It's hilarious how you both don't understand how your replies reaffirm the fact that Microsoft has made a piece of **** design.

It's a hot corner. They have been used for other purposes before. Usually by advanced users, ironically.

audioman said,
You know why he didn't know he can "just click"? Because clicking an invisible tiny spot makes no ****ing sense to most people. It's hilarious how you both don't understand how your replies reaffirm the fact that Microsoft has made a piece of **** design.

It's even more hilarious how you think your opinion is fact.

Coming from OS X, I don't particularly miss the Start Menu. Getting to the Start Screen and scrolling for a second or fraction of a second to find the large icon for the application that I am looking to launch is pretty fast for me. Hitting Windows Key + Q and typing the first few letters of an application is even faster for me. Both are much faster than pressing the start button to manually drill into application folder short cuts, which also all look the same visually.

Personally, I find the Start Screen as an improvement, and I work much faster with it.

no need to be whining about it - I don't like the metro ui either, but its here to stay

people are like sheep - they accommodate to even the biggest crap, if Microsoft keeps pushing windows 8 into their face, they will eventually grow to think its cool

personally I plan on staying with windows 7 till there is a descent activator for windows 8, and when I install windows 8, I plan on bringing back the start menu and disabling all of metro

im somehow curious about how will windows 9 (or whatever it gets called) is going to look like

Saex_Conroy said,
no need to be whining about it - I don't like the metro ui either, but its here to stay

people are like sheep - they accommodate to even the biggest crap, if Microsoft keeps pushing windows 8 into their face, they will eventually grow to think its cool

personally I plan on staying with windows 7 till there is a descent activator for windows 8, and when I install windows 8, I plan on bringing back the start menu and disabling all of metro

im somehow curious about how will windows 9 (or whatever it gets called) is going to look like

Some of us understood the coolness from the Developer preview days.
There is so much goodness under the visuals that some people cannot comprehend, calling them a step backward.

On my 1600x1280 monitor I have all Live Tiles pinned near the start, so when I want to update myself it's the start button on the keyboard, catch an eyeful of new data, then hit start and back to desktop for productivity.

Being able to automatically install apps across the device ecosystem is also a pleasure, with each buy being licensed for 5 devices, it is much easier than running some installer, then downloading or copying installer on additional PCs and repeating the process.
Then if you don't have a license, you have to buy a new license for the other systems or use crackware that could be infested with who knows.......

but hey, to each their own.

So, I will ask again. If windows 7 was as perfect as you think it was, how would you design windows 8?
And since when is using a mouse on a touch screen interface difficult? Point and tap is pretty similar to point and click. Swipe is similar to click and drag. Maybe you just hate it because its an even windows and not an odd? I've been using windows 8 since release and would never consider going back.

You're right. Scroll wheel tilting or rolling seems to be what they went with there. Just seemed logical in my head when I typed that, I didn't actually test to see that that was how it worked.
The one thing that bothers me with windows 8 is Microsoft pdf reader. Ever try to use the scroll wheel to scroll down in a pdf? It seems defaulted to 2 (or something like that) detents = bottom of document. The scroll wheel works fine in IE10, but they completely screwed up in PDF Reader.

ugh, that PDF reader has several annoying aspects that make it unusable for me, the biggest one being that it doesn't keep your zoom level when moving between pages. Too bad, because I'd love to be able to get rid of Adobe Reader.

I'm perfectly content with Start8. Actually better in my opinion than what Microsoft probably would have delivered... so happy they aren't budging on their choice.

Even as a no start hater, I was not expecting them to do this. Why would they? It's still selling, even if I don't like that change.

While bringing back the old Start Menu would run counter to their entire desktop/tablet hybridization strategy, I hope they realize how broken - schizophrenic - the current Windows 8 implementation is, and bring us major usability improvements in the next version.

For the time being, I'm sticking with http://www.startisback.com/ It's not what Windows 8 should be, but it's still better than putting up with this crap.

there still is a start button, it is in the charm bar and takes you to the start screen. So I don't understand why all these people say that ms has removed the start button, its there. The only difference is you are taken to a modern start page instead of an outdated start menu, which was actually shown and proven that folk used less and less each day. Just the normal whiners on all these sites complaining about this.

korupt_one said,
there still is a start button, it is in the charm bar

Its a piece of crap designed for small touchscreens. Not a useful interface capable of displaying lots of information, in high density, and be accessed quickly with a mouse.

dvb2000 said,

Its a piece of crap designed for small touchscreens. Not a useful interface capable of displaying lots of information, in high density, and be accessed quickly with a mouse.

The start button in Windows 8 can be access just as quickly as it could be in Windows 7. You can click the start button in Windows 8 with your eyes closed.

dvb2000 said,

Its a piece of crap designed for small touchscreens. Not a useful interface capable of displaying lots of information, in high density, and be accessed quickly with a mouse.

I am pretty sure the density on Start Screen is higher than that of the Start Menu. And the density gets greater as your resolution increases. Seriously, I can fit at about 34 tiles in one screen.

KevinN206 said,
I can fit at about 34 tiles in one screen.
weren't we talking about the "charms" bar (stupid name!)

Your 34 tiles on the screen, is more like a CGA desktop with huge bulky icons, designed for a tiny touchscreen.

I have 150 items on my start menu, and I can click on it and have the first 50 all displayed at once, and can scroll to the bottom of the list in a fraction of a second.

You cant even FIND the charms menu, let alone open it in that time. all the important things are just there on the start menu, including things like control panel, printers documents etc, accessible in an instant.

dvb2000 said,
weren't we talking about the "charms" bar (stupid name!)

Your 34 tiles on the screen, is more like a CGA desktop with huge bulky icons, designed for a tiny touchscreen.

I have 150 items on my start menu, and I can click on it and have the first 50 all displayed at once, and can scroll to the bottom of the list in a fraction of a second.

You cant even FIND the charms menu, let alone open it in that time. all the important things are just there on the start menu, including things like control panel, printers documents etc, accessible in an instant.

How do you fit 50 items at once? Is it even practical without sorting or categorizing? I can see about 22 items on my "all programs" list on Windows 7 with a 1080p monitor. On my 1280x800 laptop, I can still see only 22 items. You can also access a lot of common items such as Control Panel by right-clicking on the bottom-left corner (same corner as the start button, except right-click instead).

Sorry, but this charmsbar... Metro Startscreen is okay for me, but this charms bar? 2 functions that do nothing on my pc, 1 function that are not self-instructional (what means notifications? 1-8 hours?) Settings, System control at the top, pc Settings at the bottom?

dvb2000 said,
weren't we talking about the "charms" bar (stupid name!)

Your 34 tiles on the screen, is more like a CGA desktop with huge bulky icons, designed for a tiny touchscreen.

I have 150 items on my start menu, and I can click on it and have the first 50 all displayed at once, and can scroll to the bottom of the list in a fraction of a second.

You cant even FIND the charms menu, let alone open it in that time. all the important things are just there on the start menu, including things like control panel, printers documents etc, accessible in an instant.


I wouldn't need to find the charms bar for one because I already know where it is, and two I would go and click on the left end of the task bar. where the start button used to be. Still does the same thing believe it or not.

people still talk about start button =/ start screen way better than a little menu few tweaks here and there will make it perfect. if there is a need for a start button i suggest a start button to display start screen on desktop nothing else or using charmbar start button will show start screen on desktop

another thing i hope they don't take transparency from taskbar

I am curious how that will affect the buying decision with Surface Pro... should we all wait for a Surface Pro with Windows Blue preinstalled now?

ThunderRiver said,
I am curious how that will affect the buying decision with Surface Pro... should we all wait for a Surface Pro with Windows Blue preinstalled now?

its just an update buy now then update to Blue

I still can't believe that for some people pressing the winkey (which I've been doing since the Win98 days) is so much harder than hunting down a button with the cursor. Incredible.

xankazo said,
I still can't believe that for some people pressing the winkey (which I've been doing since the Win98 days) is so much harder than hunting down a button with the cursor. Incredible.

MOST consumers don't even know they have a windows key. Try doing phone support and tell the person on the other end to "Press the windows key".. see what happens.

If you actually go down the taskbar where the start button used to be and click, the same exact thing happens that would happen if an actual visible button was there.

Not exactly a hard concept to grasp for people who actually want to get **** done instead of wasting everyones time (and their own) by complaining about a non-issue.

There are 3, 4 sometimes 5 different ways to open the start screen. The start button is still there, but hidden. Then the start button on the charms bar. The windows key on your keyboard. Ctrl-Esc. And on tablets like Surface, there is also a hardware start button.

warwagon said,

MOST consumers don't even know they have a windows key. Try doing phone support and tell the person on the other end to "Press the windows key".. see what happens.

Warwagon, I've done phone support in the past, however, if you are doing that right now, then you are in a position to educate the person on the other side of the phone (you are probably doing that without even knowing it). And as part of a community of advance users, then you should be open to change. It is something that is always in my mind, and to be honest, although I could see the difference between Vista and Windows 7, I actually liked Vista because I looked at the positive side of things. Where there negatives that I've seen? Yes, I've seen tons, but it was something that I wouldn't let me stop from learning. Yes, the key is LEARNING and providing the necessary information to those that are non-tech savvy. Now if you don't feel that way, then maybe, you should not be in phone support, or maybe you're just burnt out with your job - I know the feeling.

Put it this way, my brother bought a new Sony Vaio Netbook with Touch Screen and Windows 8. He is the type of person that just wants something new, even though he just play casual games, browse the Internet, checks email, and he hated Windows 8. Why? Because he wasn't educated with the OS. He even told me that he doesn't like it, but after showing him the gestures and the hot corners within 5 minutes, I never heard another complaint from him. Although right after that quick session, he did ask it take a few extra steps to shutdown a computer, and my reply was, because you never shutdown your laptop. That was the end of that quick session.

So Chris Perillo eat your heart out!

The question is, Who's asking about the Start button? CNET Beta? I don't think MS coming out with whatever announcement by saying "Guys, uhm... MS Blue won't have Start button, is that cool?" CNET is a troller in my eye/s

You hit the nail on the head, who exactly ask for it? CNet, Neowin,... have a lot of users, yes, but there are far away to represent Windows customers. We all saw it with the Office 2010 GUI, who cry loudest about the ribbon Interface? Customers or "forum experts"?

MFH said,
I know countless of average users that curse ribbon UI every day...

Oh me too.
Now that I've got Windows 8 with Explorer ribbon, I've lost all my productivity navigating around the filesystem.

Creating new folders used to be as easy as ALT+F,W,F <type Name> enter
Now it's ALT+2 <Type Name> enter

Even when you gain efficiency with re-learning; it's the relearning people are bitching about.

If by public, you mean the internet. And, if by internet, you mean a subset of geeks that spend their entire days and nights on tech forums, then yeah... I agree.

Wyn6 said,
If by public, you mean the internet. And, if by internet, you mean a subset of geeks that spend their entire days and nights on tech forums, then yeah... I agree.

So true. The whiners are in reality a small subset of PC users. It's just a shame that a lot of this small group of people are in positions where they are able to influence regular users by writing articles biased with their own opinions. Quite why the people who dislike it can't just ignore it and let everybody else make their own mind up, is beyond me.

Well, if you look at the reviews at newegg, most win 8 versions got a 3/5 rating,
while win 7 get a 5/5 rating. So I'm almost sure than even "regular" user are whining.
The gap is less obvious at amazon. Perhaps the newegg consumers are " a subset of geeks that spend their entire days and nights on tech forums", too ?

There are no productivity benefits/gains from having a start button, except initial discoverability.

Now start menu vs start screen... that's an entirely different (and unrelated) debate.

rfirth said,
There are no productivity benefits/gains from having a start button, except initial discoverability.

Two thoughts: (1) The proliferation of third-party addons suggests that customers want it. Even if they don't need it that is an argument for providing it. But they appear to think it worth having.
(2) Start button as a target to click on is very useful indeed when running Win8 windowed, in a VM or remotely. Hitting the corner is much harder.

gb8080 said,

Two thoughts: (1) The proliferation of third-party addons suggests that customers want it. Even if they don't need it that is an argument for providing it. But they appear to think it worth having.
(2) Start button as a target to click on is very useful indeed when running Win8 windowed, in a VM or remotely. Hitting the corner is much harder.

They only know they want these pointless third party start buttons because someone who thought they knew what they were talking about told them they needed it.

SharpGreen said,

They only know they want these pointless third party start buttons because someone who thought they knew what they were talking about told them they needed it.

QFT.

If you ask most of the non-tech savvy crowd who are avoiding W8 why they are avoiding it, most will tell you something like... "because I heard/read bad things about it".

Rather than letting people try it and decide for themselves, those who think they know better are pushing their own opinions onto others. Ironically, it's the non-tech savvy userbase that the new interface is perfectly suited for.

Also to comment on WarWagon's original post, (who by the way is a well known Windows 8 hater on this site, and therefore one of those responsible for adversely influencing the choices of others instead of letting them form their own opinion), the lack of a start button has absolutely zero impact on productivity. Sure there's a small 5-10 minute learning curve to learn the new methods of doing things as with moving to any new OS, but everything you could do in Windows 7 can be done in Windows 8 with an equal or fewer number of clicks/key presses. So at worst, productivity is equal to Windows 7, at best a little better.

Singh400 said,
...the **** is Windows Blue?

When did missing the start of sentences out and replacing those words with ... become "fashionable"? I must've missed the memo.

YAY Let the whiners stay with Win7 or use some stupid 3rd party app. There's nothing difficult about the start screen. I've already taught a bunch of people that are not at all tech savy how to use it and it took me no longer then 10 min each to get them going. Haven't heard a single complaint since.

Colin McGregor said,
YAY Let the whiners stay with Win7 or use some stupid 3rd party app. There's nothing difficult about the start screen. I've already taught a bunch of people that are not at all tech savy how to use it and it took me no longer then 10 min each to get them going. Haven't heard a single complaint since.

The key there is "that are not at all tech savy" ..the start screen was made for non tech savy people. They love that ****! They love everything full screen, non tech savy people aren't that productive anyway, thus they don't hate on the new start screen.

warwagon said,

The key there is "that are not at all tech savy" ..the start screen was made for non tech savy people. They love that ****! They love everything full screen, non tech savy people aren't that productive anyway, thus they don't hate on the new start screen.

x 1K

I'd be willing to bet that for every 10 non-tech savy people who don't mind the Start Screen you will also find 10 more folks who know tech that feel the same way.

warwagon said,

The key there is "that are not at all tech savy" ..the start screen was made for non tech savy people. They love that ****! They love everything full screen, non tech savy people aren't that productive anyway, thus they don't hate on the new start screen.

BS. Especially considering the Start Screen is MORE powerful and customisable than the old Start Menu. If you like hunting through endless folders and sub folders in a tiny box then good for you. But i actually have work to do, and the Start Screen gets sh*t done quicker.

Loads of "tech savvy" people like myself love the Start Screen. It's just that as always the people who bitch about stuff on the internet are always the loudest. And again as usual it's the tech savvy people that are the worst at adapting to change. I'm happy MS are not listening to you.

Case in point - my parents (~55 years old) never really got win7 or remembered how to do many things even after 3 years of using it. 2 days with win8 - 2 DAYS - and they get it. Enough said.

although I do like win8, i must agree with this. when i go to my mums for example, everything is fullscreen, EVERYTHING! even folders! So i can agree with the point that non tech savvy people will love start screen. Big obvious buttons.

Colin McGregor said,
YAY Let the whiners stay with Win7 or use some stupid 3rd party app. There's nothing difficult about the start screen. I've already taught a bunch of people that are not at all tech savy how to use it and it took me no longer then 10 min each to get them going. Haven't heard a single complaint since.

Nope.avi.

I installed Win8 with Start Menu button and "ByPass Modern UI" which gets you natively on Desktop on each boot, like the server 2012. You mad?

I've Win7 within Win8 -while you daily fight with the painful usability; because MS says it's the right thing for you.

1Pixel said,

BS. Especially considering the Start Screen is MORE powerful and customisable than the old Start Menu. If you like hunting through endless folders and sub folders in a tiny box then good for you. But i actually have work to do, and the Start Screen gets sh*t done quicker.

Um, no I just search for what I want and i'm given a list which isn't sorted by category all the while keeping what I was working on in front of me. I can just click what I want. Plus my list of installed programs doesn't look like **** spewed out a donkey's ass.

warwagon said,

The key there is "that are not at all tech savy" ..the start screen was made for non tech savy people. They love that ****! They love everything full screen, non tech savy people aren't that productive anyway, thus they don't hate on the new start screen.

An conversely, the tech savvy crowd who seem to moan and hate the most are ironically the most able to avoid the controversial elements and have an OS that looks and functions almost exactly like Windows 7. What does that tell you?

Xabier Granja said,
Because Apple and Google allow you so much of that?

Don't you dare put Google in the same basket as Apple. Problem is Microsoft is now becoming more and more like Apple and that's a bad thing.

HoochieMamma said,
It better bring this radical and far out idea called "choice".

You have a choice, and HAVE HAD a choice since Windows 8 was released. Buy it and use it, or not. If you want an OS that looks like and functions like Windows 7, then use Windows 7. Clearly all you trolls assign aboutely no value to all the other improvements in Windows 8 besides the controversial Metro elements, which as I've said a thousand times can be avoided entirely by anybody with half a brain.

In fact, anybody with half a brain can make their copy of Windows 8 look and function almost exactly like Windows 7 for free if they want.

Shiranui said,
Modern apps windowed would be nice.
Can't even play minesweeper without going fullscreen now.

To call apps that can only run full-screen "modern" is an odd choice of word.
Full-screen came first, windowed only came later. Full-screen only is in fact old fashioned.

Is anyone really surprised? If they were going to back track they would have done it during the development of 8 when most people threw a fit.

I didn't realise that retail custoers had access to the product during the development cycle. It's not dev's that just use the product, it's "Joe Average" too...

Raa said,
I didn't realise that retail custoers had access to the product during the development cycle. It's not dev's that just use the product, it's "Joe Average" too...

I didn't realise that Microsoft had a complete embargo on all information about Windows 8 right up until it was released, and that they didn't have two public betas that were more downloaded than any previous beta.

And they ignored the feedback from the experts (for almost two years now!) and all of the public beta users (which never include Joe Average, since he doesn't do OS installs).

Windows 8 is the New Coke of operating systems.

Screw Microsoft anyway. I've been using Windows since Windows 3.11 but with Windows 8, I gave up. I'm now a OS X/Linux/Android user, and I didn't miss Microsoft a single day since I got rid of their product 4 months ago.

myxomatosis said,
Screw Microsoft anyway. I've been using Windows since Windows 3.11 but with Windows 8, I gave up. I'm now a OS X/Linux/Android user, and I didn't miss Microsoft a single day since I got rid of their product 4 months ago.

doesn't stop you from talking **** in a windows 8 post, guess osx/Linux/android isn't as fun as you say it is.

This thing happens a lot in MMO game forum. The loudest person who always talks trash about the game, often the one that stays and plays the game longer ...

Colin McGregor said,

doesn't stop you from talking **** in a windows 8 post, guess osx/Linux/android isn't as fun as you say it is.

Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to agree with him. I've never been a Mac guy, but since I jumped on board working on Best Buy, I've gotten the chance to play with a lot of the hardware and software from Windows 8 and touchscreens, to the whole Mac line up. I had plans to put Win 8 on my laptop at least, but after a month and a half, I'm kind of over it already. It's not that I'm afraid of change, hell I know I can turn to Stardock's Start8 if I need to, but I'm just rather unhappy with their direction.

As far as laptops go, I may just get a Mac if I ever become a non-broke college student heh. But seriously, the gestures are plenty enough to make the track pads not suck ass anyway, and I don't feel so claustrophobic in OSX as I do in Windows 8.

Obviously, I'm not drinking haterade on Microsoft here, but I can sort of see how one could be frustrated by it.

myxomatosis said,
Screw Microsoft anyway. I've been using Windows since Windows 3.11 but with Windows 8, I gave up. I'm now a OS X/Linux/Android user, and I didn't miss Microsoft a single day since I got rid of their product 4 months ago.

I love how this kind of comment is so obviously fake. You troll, have endured everything MS produced, but this, THIS ONE, win8 did it. Nevermind XP sucked until sp1/2, or vista had great compatibility problems for like a year. This one, this horrible win8, with it's excellent compatibility, sub-10 second boot times and the most improved version of the desktop to date, this one did it for you and now you're happier with any other OS out there. Even LINUX, wow.

Back away troll, I have fire.

Xabier Granja said,

the most improved version of the desktop to date

Must have missed all the great improvements... I've only seen several unnecessary changes, some of which make the OS look like s***....

If you have the ability to see past the start menu, you would see other improvements from win8 over win7.

MFH said,

Must have missed all the great improvements... I've only seen several unnecessary changes, some of which make the OS look like s***....

MFH said,

Must have missed all the great improvements... I've only seen several unnecessary changes,

Clearly you have. It is fact, not opinion, that the underlying OS in Windows 8 is better tha Windows 7. Enhanced task manager, faster boot and app launch times, awesome file operation progress dialogs, smaller memory footprint out of the box, and much more. This is all undisputable. All of the controversial elements are completely avoidable if you possess at least half a brain.

But clearly all the performance improvements are "unnecessary changes" huh?

TCLN Ryster said,

Enhanced task manager, faster boot and app launch times, awesome file operation progress dialogs, smaller memory footprint out of the box, and much more.

Not a single one of these things matters to the common, everyday computer user. You know, the 99% of desktop computer buyers and end-users?

They leave the desktop computer on all the time, don't even know the task manager exists, and haven't had to worry about available RAM or CPU cycles for over a decade now. They need to have visual cues on the interface so they know where to point and click their mouse and will never reach across their desks at home of the office to touch a screen.

Overall, Windows 8 is just fine for phones and touch devices, but is a nightmare for 95% of the computer world who grew up on GUIs that adhered to beginners 101 best practices.

Windows 8 didn't need to be a nightmare. But if Microsoft isn't going to fix the desktop usability of Windows 8 with Windows Blue, then they can kiss the entire 2013 sales season goodbye.

Good. Backtracking is for the weak, and in a few years people will have forgotten about the Start button and its supposed advantages

Scorpus said,
Good. Backtracking is for the weak, and in a few years people will have forgotten about the Start button and its supposed advantages

I don't mind the Start MENU being replaced by the start screen, but not having a visible button at the desktop for mouse users is just dumb. Sure it appears if you poke the corner, but as the bottom of the screen is taken by the task bar anyway, getting rid of the button was kinda daft.

FloatingFatMan said,

I don't mind the Start MENU being replaced by the start screen, but not having a visible button at the desktop for mouse users is just dumb. Sure it appears if you poke the corner, but as the bottom of the screen is taken by the task bar anyway, getting rid of the button was kinda daft.

Agreed!

"Andrew, you've got to be number one. I won't tolerate any losers in this family. Win. WIN. WIN." That line from a movie is all I could think of when I read your comment. "Backtracking is for the weak", what kind of statement is that? So nothing good ever came from saying you're sorry? What is it people value? is it forgiveness? It's okay to be determined, but not to acknowledge criticism when several people are complaining doesn't sound healthy. I don't like windows 8, if only for the fact that it has brought a giant amount of discord within the Microsoft community. I don't think there will be anything to stop Steve Ballmer until someone kicks him out. By then, everyone who could have cared about Microsoft will have moved on. Isn't there something shareholders can do? Does the fact that Microsoft is almost guaranteed to have it's operating system on a bunch of vendors' computers allow them to do anything? Can someone who Steve Ballmer listens to please speak up?

FloatingFatMan said,

I don't mind the Start MENU being replaced by the start screen, but not having a visible button at the desktop for mouse users is just dumb. Sure it appears if you poke the corner, but as the bottom of the screen is taken by the task bar anyway, getting rid of the button was kinda daft.

Except we haven't had keyboards for years now that have one or two Start keys on them. People should just know there's more than one way to access the start screen.

briangw said,

Except we haven't had keyboards for years now that have one or two Start keys on them. People should just know there's more than one way to access the start screen.

Most average users don't even know they can use a different web browser, let alone press the Winkey to get the start menu/screen up...

I think you might be wrong because if the average user sees a Windows key on their keyboard that not only doesn't reflect a letter and looks out of place, they are going to press it to see what it does.

If he/she is smart and rich enough, he/she would already write his/her own OS.

Anarkii said,
RIP Microsoft.
So, anyone here rich enough to buy the Windows brand and make it how it should be made?

Anarkii said,
RIP Microsoft.
So, anyone here rich enough to buy the Windows brand and make it how it should be made?

how did I know you would be here with some dumb R.I.P remark

Colin McGregor said,

how did I know you would be here with some dumb R.I.P remark

And how did I know youd be here talking Windows 8 up to be the best thing slice the invention of toilet paper?

zeke009 said,
Do you know that everyone wants Windows the way you do? I doubt we're on the same page.

Obviously something is amiss with windows 8 since the OS has bombed so badly at retail.
And no 40 million OEM sales does not equal a successful product if over half of them are still sitting on the shelves.

Order_66 said,
Obviously something is amiss with windows 8 since the OS has bombed so badly at retail.
And no 40 million OEM sales does not equal a successful product if over half of them are still sitting on the shelves.
My comment was more about the two of us having different ideas of what it should be and then adding in millions of other ideas of what it should be.

In stores that I have been too in Canada PC's, laptops and tablets have been flying of the shelves. I haven't seen so many people around the PC area of these stores for a while, so I really don't think its doing as badly as some of the analysts and so called store clerks say.

Anarkii said,

And how did I know youd be here talking Windows 8 up to be the best thing slice the invention of toilet paper?

Nobody said win8 is the best thing ever. What they're saying, is that dumbfounded criticism based on no facts has no place here.

Or simply stick to Windows 7 until they realize the rest of the world has fully moved onto the metro environment, and only then make the switch.

it's funny as well, I can see most new computers coming with touch screens as standard. Seems pointless to have a start button on a touch screen =/.

I don't care about start button. I'm okay without it but by the gods! If you install programs like Tuneup Utilities watch how many freaking icons appears on new start screen. It's the same for any program icons and icons. You have to manually unpin them shesh!

MaSx said,
I don't care about start button. I'm okay without it but by the gods! If you install programs like Tuneup Utilities watch how many freaking icons appears on new start screen. It's the same for any program icons and icons. You have to manually unpin them shesh!

right click all then unpin you don't gotta do it one at a time

MaSx said,
I don't care about start button. I'm okay without it but by the gods! If you install programs like Tuneup Utilities watch how many freaking icons appears on new start screen. It's the same for any program icons and icons. You have to manually unpin them shesh!

Thats a problem with the application not handling the new Metro menu correctly, not a problem with Windows 8

Technically it is impossible for existing desktop apps. There is no flag that says this is the primary shortcut/app. While Microsoft could do some tricks to figure it out, there is no guarantee. For example, I could have an app that has 5 .exe shortcuts. Which one is the right one?

This! Installing a few programs and I have tiles for readme, help, and uninstall files. There should be an "overflow" panel which takes all of this extra bloat, or something like hitting a little arrow in the corner of the tile to bring up additional options/files relating to the primary program entry.

MaSx said,
I don't care about start button. I'm okay without it but by the gods! If you install programs like Tuneup Utilities watch how many freaking icons appears on new start screen. It's the same for any program icons and icons. You have to manually unpin them shesh!

Blame that not on Microsoft but on Tuneup developers. It's not MS's fault that a specific developer chooses to create a thousand unnecesary icons. That said, it takes 2 seconds to right-click a bunch of them and unpin them all at once.

All this crap stems from the fact that the program installation system is just plain awful in Windows. The whole next-next-next-finish thing is confusing to the novice user (seen it first hand more than enough times), the shortcuts are simply a way of hiding the mess that is the two different Program Files folders (did we really need another one for 64-bit apps?).

By comparison the OSX .app container system makes much more sense as programs can just be dragged and dropped from the installation image and will work even after moving them somewhere else on the system whereas Windows programs just break.

Xabier Granja said,

Blame that not on Microsoft but on Tuneup developers. It's not MS's fault that a specific developer chooses to create a thousand unnecesary icons. That said, it takes 2 seconds to right-click a bunch of them and unpin them all at once.

No, this is Microsoft's fault. On Win 7, that same program would have all those different EXE icons within an Application sub-folder, but the new Start screen doesn't seem to do that.

Basically, they screwed up. Desktop apps with multiple runnables should be shown within a folder, not a bunch of separate icons jumbled about all over the shop. They've denormalised the start menu, idiots.

Tidus4eva said,
Thats a problem with the application not handling the new Metro menu correctly, not a problem with Windows 8

Which is problem with backwards compatibility isn't it?

Agreed. It seems here that the general attitude is MS is so absolutely perfect, if something else goes wrong it is NEVER MS fault. Like when I was complaining about the hot corners on the desktop environment. MY ONLY ISSUE WITH WIN 8. People still slammed me and said blame that on the developers for putting controls and buttons close to the hot corners. Really? How is it the developer fault when something messes up with a new OS?

libertas83 said,
Technically it is impossible for existing desktop apps. There is no flag that says this is the primary shortcut/app. While Microsoft could do some tricks to figure it out, there is no guarantee. For example, I could have an app that has 5 .exe shortcuts. Which one is the right one?

Technically it was possible for existing Applications IF they adhered to Microsoft's Updated look and feel standards for applications and installers that was published when Vista was released. MS said back then, only application links in start menu.

Any app dev who failed to adopt is to blame.

I'm confused by the hate, I feel as though I've been missing some massive feature of the Start button that I never knew about and have now lost with Windows 8.

What feature lies in there that I never discovered? I'm on Win8 now and have a few other Win7 machines at my disposal to discover whatever feature it is that has been lost.

zeke009 said,
I'm confused by the hate, I feel as though I've been missing some massive feature of the Start button that I never knew about and have now lost with Windows 8.

What feature lies in there that I never discovered? I'm on Win8 now and have a few other Win7 machines at my disposal to discover whatever feature it is that has been lost.

trolls and noobs. plain and simple trolls and noobs

Windows Nashville said,
Glad to hear this news. For a while there I was afraid that Microsoft might pull itself out of its death spiral.

I don't believe that Microsoft is in death spiral but they are deliberately making mistakes and insist on it. Making its most important product on the pile of a tried and failed UI which they surprisingly believe in it. That's fine for mobile tablet and even RT but why pooping on windows? I don't know what's wrong with them.

Removing the start button is not a bad mistake. People really are griping about that one. The start menu itself is more functional in the new method and anyone who gripes about the start menu not being mouse friendly is being way too critical.

Let's go back to the Windows 95 start menu and try using a mouse or trackpad with it. You will find it much harder to use than the Windows 8 Start Screen. In fact, you will find that both will fill up your screen!

Colin McGregor said,

trolls and noobs. plain and simple trolls and noobs

Colin is a serial fisherman trying to hook anyone who will take his bait. Just ignore him

Windows Nashville said,
Glad to hear this news. For a while there I was afraid that Microsoft might pull itself out of its death spiral.

I love how all the trolls/idiots crawl out from under their bridges for articles like this.

S3P€hR said,

I don't believe that Microsoft is in death spiral but they are deliberately making mistakes and insist on it. Making its most important product on the pile of a tried and failed UI which they surprisingly believe in it. That's fine for mobile tablet and even RT but why pooping on windows? I don't know what's wrong with them.

If you believe 2 monts is enough to prove that a system is "tried and failed", you're a) extremely impatient and 2) crazy wrong. Look at OS X, it took it basically 12 years to achieve greatness (just read the most recent Ars Technica article on it). You want to judge Win8 in 2 months? Ridiculous. If anything, I'm quite happy that MS is sticking to their opinion for the long run and not allowing themselves to be contaminated with all the noise.

Things take time. OS-es take years. The same people crying about the new metro environment are the ones who cried when MS-DOS went away, and then look what happened.

History tends to repeat itself.

Windows Nashville said,
Glad to hear this news. For a while there I was afraid that Microsoft might pull itself out of its death spiral.

Aha, a "Linux = Heaven" fan! Great to have you here. So you can observe the evolution best sold/popular OS ever. Yes, evolution, whereas Linux has lost it's most important advantage (speed) long time ago already and still thinks the ordinary computer user is a nerd who is really interested in the techie filestructure and corresponding directory structures with mysterious names as 'sys', 'bin', 'dev', 'HDA1'.

I've read the article at Ars, and while reading the comments of the first OSX release I couldn't help to see the resemblance on Windows 8.

People hate change, even when it's necessary sometimes to move on properly.

Hmm, internally Windows NT has unattractive names for devices. It seems to make more sense to have /home/I_Hate_Unique_User_Names than d:\users\I_Hate_Unique_User_Names\My Documents. It could also become confusing. Now, was that file share drive F: or G: ? Is drive J: or K: my burner? Is my home drive h: ? Uh oh, I've lost my M: drive. I don't remember how to get to the path. C:\windows\system32\write.exe or /usr/bin/nedit? Which is easier?

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The TCP/IP stack was pretty much pulled verbatim out of BSD (which is allowed). It's pretty much a two-paragraph agreement.

And the most popular OS ever? Well, if you limit yourself to the desktop, yes. But look at phones, routers, Cadillacs, supercomputers, space missions, CERN (and the related scientific community.) I'm sure there are many other categories that I have missed. Windows doesn't even come close.

I don't know if linux will gain market share now that Steam has released a beta for linux. One thing I do know is that gamers drive much of the PC market. If linux suddenly has the best games, who knows, MaximumPC might come out with MaximumLinux.

zeke009 said,
I'm confused by the hate, I feel as though I've been missing some massive feature of the Start button that I never knew about and have now lost with Windows 8.

Not only does metro completely replace all the functionality of the start menu, but for those who can absolutely not live without it you can install any of dozens of start menu replacements today. This news that Microsoft will not be adding back the start menu should have no bearing on anything because **you can already add it back.** Today. Right now. For free. You can configure Windows 8 to look and behave exactly like Windows 7.

So why should anyone even care whether Windows Blue brings it back or not?

I_Hate_Unique_User_Names said,
Hmm, internally Windows NT has unattractive names for devices. It seems to make more sense to have /home/I_Hate_Unique_User_Names than d:\users\I_Hate_Unique_User_Names\My Documents. It could also become confusing. Now, was that file share drive F: or G: ? Is drive J: or K: my burner? Is my home drive h: ? Uh oh, I've lost my M: drive. I don't remember how to get to the path. C:\windows\system32\write.exe or /usr/bin/nedit? Which is easier?

First, you don't need to memorize libraries, they are libraries. They are stuck to your explorer. Asin when you're going through files... it is automatically there.
I also don't have to enter c:\windows\system32\write.exe to open it. I simply have to type write and press enter in the runbox or search box.

HDD names make more sense in Windows, A+B are reserved for floppy's. Typically Windows root disk is C, secondary etc. drives as D, E, F etc. CD drives the first following alphabetical letters.
Then network shares are _usually_ the last alphabetical letters. XYZ. Or often the first letter of the network drive name.

In Linux, SDA/HDA etc? ok there is _some_ structure in it. sata is _usually_ SDA, but also happens to be mounted to the HDA's, which are meant for IDE disks.
First bios disk is 1, 2nd 2, and so on. Makes _some_ sense. For you, me and other techies, but whats easier, a simple ABC structure, or the *nix way?


They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The TCP/IP stack was pretty much pulled verbatim out of BSD (which is allowed). It's pretty much a two-paragraph agreement.

And? MS shared plenty of code and MS developers THEMSELF helped on the Linux kernel.

And the most popular OS ever? Well, if you limit yourself to the desktop, yes. But look at phones, routers, Cadillacs, supercomputers, space missions, CERN (and the related scientific community.) I'm sure there are many other categories that I have missed. Windows doesn't even come close.

Supercomputers is the only category Linux still dominates Windows. Why is unsure, Linux has way to much overhead on the amount of cores used in a typical supercomputer. And has absolutely single advantage in raw processing power on X86 super computers. But its advantage is that the researchers and whatnot, have full control over the OS.
But Azure falls under one of the biggest supercomputers in the world and runs smoothly on NT.
Servers vary from resource from 40-60% either Windows or Linux. So in my opinion, in the server world, they are quite evenly matched.
So the biggest market of them all is still consumers and cooperate environments. And here Microsoft truly dominates. It is also the most profitable of available markets.
Android might seem big, but compared to desktop market share, android is a small player.

I don't know if linux will gain market share now that Steam has released a beta for linux. One thing I do know is that gamers drive much of the PC market. If linux suddenly has the best games, who knows, MaximumPC might come out with MaximumLinux.

The hype surely will. I'm just finding it a bad choice of Steam to primarily focus on Ubuntu only.
Be it is the biggest distro. I rather see them sticking with core distro's like Red Hat or Debian.

I_Hate_Unique_User_Names said,
.......

Calling thenetavenger to debunk this.

Windows has internal names like \device\harddisk0\path etc which in turn get mapped to drive letters which were once seen as a better abstraction for the average user.
With Windows 8 this is changing. forget about needing to know anything about your computer when you have apps and charms for shuffling data between local / cloud storage.

Pretty sure the TCP/IP stack was completely re-written in Vista to be written as native IPV6 with IPV4 implementation on top. No MORE BSD which was simply a fast way to get windows networking back in the early 90s after one of BillG's learning junkets to the universities when he saw the potential of networks.

...

Colin McGregor said,

trolls and noobs. plain and simple trolls and noobs

Honestly, the word troll has been tossed around so much it has lost its meaning!
Opinionated people are not trolls!
Will someone please tell me when did it become:
troll = person who does not agree with person in question.

I have lost all respect for those who label everyone as trolls, instead of coming up with an actual intelligent response for themselves. Comments are meant for healthy discussion!